Showing posts with label Nuclear Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuclear Energy. Show all posts
1.24.2021
The Dangers of Nuclear Bombs
Thank You for stopping by the Green Blog. If additional information is needed or you have a question let me know by posting a question or comment. Together we can make a difference and create a future that will benefit everyone.
10.13.2015
Map LandfillFire Dangerously Close Illegally Burried Radioactive Waste
#StLouis Landfill Fire Dangerously Close to Illegally Burried Radioactive Waste http://t.co/jLP6Epizmi #Bridgeton pic.twitter.com/zYTAFDPvxs
— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) October 13, 2015
Area Map of Landfill Fire Dangerously Close to Illegally Burried Radioactive Waste
Thank You for stopping by-Share and Comment below. If additional information in needed or you have a question let me know. Together we can make a difference and create a future that will benefit everyone. Build a Green StLouis Green Building Tips and Resources via: Scotty- St Louis Renewable Energy Green Blog
-->
4.05.2011
Plea for Presidential Leadership on Sustainable Energy
...the political calculus in Washington is moving in the opposite direction. The House Republicans are so clueless about the need for sustainable economic development, that they are working overtime to use the budget process to prevent EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses and other air and water pollutants. And the President seems reluctant to push energy and environment and provide meaningful, sustained leadership...
________
________
Steven Cohen Executive director, Columbia University's Earth InstituteThe President inherited an economic disaster that by necessity, dominated the agenda of his first two years in office. With the economy beginning to pick up steam, the BP oil disaster and the Japanese nuclear catastrophe are increasing the demand for President's leadership on energy. But so far, we haven't seen much. A new energy policy is urgently needed, and it must be influenced by an updated assessment of the risks of energy development after our experiences in Japan and the Gulf of Mexico.
Instead of a massive national mobilization for renewable energy, we got a "Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future" from the White House. The blueprint starts with the typical rhetoric about expanding the domestic production of fossil fuels. The big news in that plan is that coal is omitted in order to "expand safe and responsible domestic oil and gas development and production." The other elements of the plan include building more fuel efficient vehicles and encouraging more energy efficient buildings. Toward the end of the blueprint, they get around to "innovating our way to a clean energy future." This part of the blueprint includes the goal of generating 80% of our electricity from clean energy sources by 2035. The Obama energy plan provides a number of déjà vu moments. They really are rounding up the usual suspects.
The problem is that the Administration assigns a lower priority to energy and environment than to the economy, health care, and our military engagements. While sustainable energy could be a huge boost for the economy, the American political right is unwilling to invest government money in R & D and will not allow tax policies that favor renewable energy. All of that could be overcome with Presidential leadership, but I do not get the sense that the President really cares about these issues. Until he does, I don't think anything will change.
I hope it won't take another local disaster to move this issue up on the political agenda. As the news from Japan's damaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plants turns from very bad to even worse, one can't help but be reminded of the slow motion disaster of the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. All the elements are there: assurances that the technology was manageable, the sudden lethal accident, a clean-up effort characterized by trial and error and unproven technologies. Let's hope the next energy disaster isn't the contamination of a city's water supply as a result of hydrofracking for natural gas.
Our inability to manage technology and our extreme need for energy leads to technological failures. The irony is that the only way to solve these problems is through the application of other technologies. Dismantling the energy based economy is not politically feasible. There is little question that along with the wondrous benefits of modern technology we face substantial risks. There is also little question that people are willing to tolerate those risks in order to obtain the benefits of technology. We know that we cannot live in a world without risk, but the issue is what type of risk? What is the probability of risk and what its possible scope and intensity? All risk is not created equal.
Every time you put your key in your car ignition and start to drive, you know you are risking an accident. You take steps to deal with the risk. To reduce the probability of risk, you might avoid icy roads. To reduce the potential scope of an accident you might use your seat belt and turn down that shot of tequila someone offers you "for the road," However, even a horrific auto accident is unlikely to result in massive death and destruction. While some of the impacts of a crash may well be irreversible, most will fade from view fairly quickly.
By definition, the technologies with the greatest potential negative impacts are large scale and capital intensive like most of the power plants that generate electricity. These plants are vestiges of the 20th century era of heavy industry. They are built on the management notion of "economy of scale." Today, inexpensive communication and information technologies allow you to build supply chains and production processes utilizing many organizations located in many places. We have done this in a number of business operations but not energy. It is possible to conceive of a decentralized energy system, but we have not yet built one. Distributed electric generation utilizing small scale power generators managed by smart grid technologies can ensure that electric generation capacity is less prone to breakdown due to the failure of a single generation source.
The amount of investment in capital intensive energy generation has resulted in a powerful set of economic interests that have long prevented America from addressing its critical energy problems. These established interests define energy reality. New technologies that require R & D and other incentives to compete with low tech fossil fuels are defined as infeasible and inadequate. The terms of debate are controlled by these interests and reinforced by the ideology of the free market. This is an amazing argument given the tax breaks and other government funded incentives long enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry.
While there is a clear need for the U.S. government to implement an active and if you'll excuse the pun, energetic energy policy, the political calculus in Washington is moving in the opposite direction. The House Republicans are so clueless about the need for sustainable economic development, that they are working overtime to use the budget process to prevent EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses and other air and water pollutants. And the President seems reluctant to push energy and environment and provide meaningful, sustained leadership. This is not a new story. But I for one hoped for more. I still do.
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
Nuclear Vs. Coal-
I propose we throw down the gauntlet to anyone advocating expansion of nuclear, coal, petroleum-based or other hazardous energy technologies: would you send your son or daughter to work in the coal mines or to clean up after an accident at a nuclear power plant? Would you accept the siting of such a facility in your neighborhood? Would you accept an oil rig off your nearest shore?
Kelly Rigg Executive Director, GCCA crosspost via Huff Post GreenWorkers at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant are rightfully being hailed as heroes. A glimpse into their lives shows the high price they are paying to stave off a nuclear catastrophe -- 12 hour shifts, very little food, deplorable sleeping conditions and an expectation that some of or all of them will soon die. It's heartbreaking and telling that industry insiders refer to them as "glow boys" despite their immense sacrifice.
The fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster is spreading and we need to get prepared for the consequences. I'm not referring in this case to the contaminated particles that have seeped into the land and sea surrounding the crippled plant, but fallout of a less radioactive and far more political variety.
In the German state of Baden-Württemberg, the anti-nuclear Green party won a stunning upset victory over Angela Merkel's Christian Democrat Union on March 27, despite Ms. Merkel's last-ditch effort to win voters by announcing the temporary closure of some of the country's oldest reactors. China temporarily suspended approvals for new nuclear plants, and announced that it would likely scale back its nuclear ambitions, decreasing the proposed share of nuclear power from 5% to 3% of the total power supply by 2020. In the UK, Deputy Prime Minister Clegg suggested the government may be rethinking its plans to build a new generation of reactors:
It's also worth remembering the ongoing devastation wrought by the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill, whose one-year anniversary is coming up in April. BP set up a $20 billion fund, of which $4 billion has already been paid, to settle claims by businesses and individuals. This is on top of the actual costs to BP itself (and its insurers). Moreover, US authorities are considering prosecuting BP managers for manslaughter due to their cost-cutting measures which compromised safety.
And let's not forget the thousands of coal miners who die each year, or those who die of respiratory illnesses linked to air pollution spewed out by coal-powered plants. A report by Sierra Club puts the death toll at 4,000 per year in just the Northeastern region of the U.S. alone (PDF).
As governments grapple with the implications of Fukushima, we have a window of opportunity to fill the nuclear vacuum with safe, reliable renewable sources of energy. Japan is already thinking along these lines. As reported by Kyodo News:
But some low-carbon advocates, normally friendly to the environmental camp, have environmentalists stretching their heads. Rather than leveraging the crises at hand to help accelerate the shift to renewables, they are running a rearguard action to promote the benefits of nuclear power.
This brings to mind an old joke about the absurdity of tunnelvision. Three guys are shipwrecked on a remote desert island. One day a bottle washes ashore and out pops a genie who grants them three wishes. The first guy says, "I want to be home, enjoying a home-cooked feast with all of my friends," and poof, he's gone. The second guy says, "I wish I were home, making love to my beautiful wife," and poof he disappears as well. The third guy looks around and says, "Gee, it's kind of lonely around here... I wish those other guys were back here on the island."
But choosing our energy future is no joke. Given the 30-50 year lifespan of a power plant built today, we owe it to our children and grandchildren to get it right. Quite apart from the long-term risks from climate change, I propose we throw down the gauntlet to anyone advocating expansion of nuclear, coal, petroleum-based or other hazardous energy technologies: would you send your son or daughter to work in the coal mines or to clean up after an accident at a nuclear power plant? Would you accept the siting of such a facility in your neighborhood? Would you accept an oil rig off your nearest shore?
If not, then what moral right do you have to ask others to make such sacrifices?
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
____________________
A No-Win Ethical Dilemma Kelly Rigg Executive Director, GCCA crosspost via Huff Post GreenThe fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster is spreading and we need to get prepared for the consequences. I'm not referring in this case to the contaminated particles that have seeped into the land and sea surrounding the crippled plant, but fallout of a less radioactive and far more political variety.
In the German state of Baden-Württemberg, the anti-nuclear Green party won a stunning upset victory over Angela Merkel's Christian Democrat Union on March 27, despite Ms. Merkel's last-ditch effort to win voters by announcing the temporary closure of some of the country's oldest reactors. China temporarily suspended approvals for new nuclear plants, and announced that it would likely scale back its nuclear ambitions, decreasing the proposed share of nuclear power from 5% to 3% of the total power supply by 2020. In the UK, Deputy Prime Minister Clegg suggested the government may be rethinking its plans to build a new generation of reactors:
We have always said there are two conditions for the future of nuclear power: [new plants] have to be safe, and we cannot let the taxpayer be ripped off," he said. "We could be in a situation now where the potential liabilities are higher, which makes it more unlikely to find private investment.That sounds like the understatement of the year. Governments and investors must be starting to realize that the smartest money is on clean energy. New research by the Pew Environment Group is backing this assumption:
The clean energy sector is emerging as one of the most dynamic and competitive in the world, witnessing 630 percent growth in finance and investments since 2004," said Phyllis Cuttino, director, Pew Clean Energy Program. "In 2010, worldwide finance and investment grew 30 percent to a record $243 billion.The biggest risk right now is that governments will look to high carbon energy sources such as coal, shale, or tar sands to warm their cold nuclear feet. But the urgency of climate change suggests this is no time to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.
It's also worth remembering the ongoing devastation wrought by the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill, whose one-year anniversary is coming up in April. BP set up a $20 billion fund, of which $4 billion has already been paid, to settle claims by businesses and individuals. This is on top of the actual costs to BP itself (and its insurers). Moreover, US authorities are considering prosecuting BP managers for manslaughter due to their cost-cutting measures which compromised safety.
And let's not forget the thousands of coal miners who die each year, or those who die of respiratory illnesses linked to air pollution spewed out by coal-powered plants. A report by Sierra Club puts the death toll at 4,000 per year in just the Northeastern region of the U.S. alone (PDF).
As governments grapple with the implications of Fukushima, we have a window of opportunity to fill the nuclear vacuum with safe, reliable renewable sources of energy. Japan is already thinking along these lines. As reported by Kyodo News:
Pursuit of solar power, bioenergy and other clean energy sources will be a key pillar of the government's reconstruction strategy to be drawn up for areas hit by a massive quake and tsunami following the country's worst nuclear accident, top government spokesman Yukio Edano said Tuesday.Just last week, yet another study was published showing that we can make the transition to a completely renewable energy infrastructure, in this scenario by 2030.
But some low-carbon advocates, normally friendly to the environmental camp, have environmentalists stretching their heads. Rather than leveraging the crises at hand to help accelerate the shift to renewables, they are running a rearguard action to promote the benefits of nuclear power.
This brings to mind an old joke about the absurdity of tunnelvision. Three guys are shipwrecked on a remote desert island. One day a bottle washes ashore and out pops a genie who grants them three wishes. The first guy says, "I want to be home, enjoying a home-cooked feast with all of my friends," and poof, he's gone. The second guy says, "I wish I were home, making love to my beautiful wife," and poof he disappears as well. The third guy looks around and says, "Gee, it's kind of lonely around here... I wish those other guys were back here on the island."
But choosing our energy future is no joke. Given the 30-50 year lifespan of a power plant built today, we owe it to our children and grandchildren to get it right. Quite apart from the long-term risks from climate change, I propose we throw down the gauntlet to anyone advocating expansion of nuclear, coal, petroleum-based or other hazardous energy technologies: would you send your son or daughter to work in the coal mines or to clean up after an accident at a nuclear power plant? Would you accept the siting of such a facility in your neighborhood? Would you accept an oil rig off your nearest shore?
If not, then what moral right do you have to ask others to make such sacrifices?
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
3.31.2011
Latest News on Missouri Nuclear Reactor Agenda
Nuclear siting bill awaits committee action (AUDIO))
Four bills focused on how to pay to pick a site for a second commercial nuclear power plant are stuck in a Senate Committee. Senator Jason Crowell, the sponsor of one of the bills, chairs the committee that held a seven-hour public hearing about three weeks ago. The committee has not considered whether to recommend full senate debate.
For him, the big issue is who will pay for the site selection. He thinks the utility company and its stockholders should bear that cost.
The sponsor of one of the proposals, Jefferson City Senator Mike Kehoe, thinks most senators are comfortable with having consumers pay for the site selection—but be repaid if no site is picked or no plant goes into operation.
Crowell worries that having consumers pay for the site selection is the first step toward repealing the construction work in progress law that says consumers won't be billed for construction costs until the plant is running. Kehoe says he favors whichever approach is the most economical way to build the plant.
For him, the big issue is who will pay for the site selection. He thinks the utility company and its stockholders should bear that cost.
The sponsor of one of the proposals, Jefferson City Senator Mike Kehoe, thinks most senators are comfortable with having consumers pay for the site selection—but be repaid if no site is picked or no plant goes into operation.
Crowell worries that having consumers pay for the site selection is the first step toward repealing the construction work in progress law that says consumers won't be billed for construction costs until the plant is running. Kehoe says he favors whichever approach is the most economical way to build the plant.
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
3.30.2011
Ameren UEs Greed-Missouri-Nuclear Reactor-
Here is some of the latest news on Energy (Electricity) Issues affecting the St Louis Area, Ameren UEs Nuclear Reactor Agenda is just plain GREEDY and will cost us the rate payers now and in the future.
- Amerens goal is to charge the people of the St Louis Area, the ratepayers, millions of dollars up front for an unnecessary, risky, and expensive Nuclear Power Reactor Plant rather than investing in the cheapest energy resource available, energy efficiency
The proposed legislation would chip away at a 1976 ballot initiative supported 2-to-1 by Missouri voters. This law protects Missourians from investor-owned utilities charging ratepayers up-front for the construction of a power plant until it is producing electricity.
Missouri General Assembly is considering legislation that would allow Ameren Missouri to charge ratepayers $40 million for a permit for a second nuclear reactor in mid-Missouri.
The proposed legislation-SB 321 and SB 406- would chip away at a 1976 ballot initiative supported 2-to-1 by Missouri voters. This law protects Missourians from investor-owned utilities charging ratepayers up-front for the construction of a power plant until it is producing electricity.
- To understand the many other reasons why SB 321 and SB 406 are bad public policy, read Senator Joan Bray's guest column in the Joplin Globe last month.
- Ameren admits it cannot find investors to fund the Nuclear Plant because it is too risky and expensive.
- Scotts Contracting/Facebook Page Latest Estimated Costs for Nuclear Reactor is $10 Billion. we'll have to pay an additional $4 Billion Dollars
- Therefore, Ameren must pass SB 321 or SB 406 which shifts the financial risk of investment of a new nuclear plant from shareholders to ratepayers. But while shareholders dodge the risk, they still receive a financial windfall if/when the reactor comes online and Ameren then sells the excess electricity out of state for a premium.
- Ameren can easily meet Missouri's energy needs through energy efficiency instead of raising your electric rates to pay for a $6 billion nuclear reactor. (Per Nuclear Reactor in Florida 6 Billion in Projected Costs ends up with total costs of 22 Billion over Budget) In the St. Louis Post Dispatch on February 25, Steve Kidwell, Ameren Missouri Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, said:
- "If we went after the potential that we've seen in our own study, we wouldn't have to build another power plant for 20 years, and we could retire Meramec, and we'd be OK. But we'd lose $30 million a year. And we just can't do that. It's that simple."
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Join the Movement and Contact the Missouri Legislative Department Here
-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat,
and Let Your Voice BE HEARD!
Active Participation is Suggested
Tell My Politician
and Let Your Voice BE HEARD!
Active Participation is Suggested
Tell My Politician --
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
3.26.2011
Coal and E.P.A. Proposes New Emission Standards for Power Plants
Adaptation to all the proposed rules constitutes an extraordinary threat to the power sector — particularly the half of U.S. electricity derived from coal-fired generation-
Is this why the Big Coal and Big Oil Firms are Lobbying to Cut the Funding for the EPA?
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
- first national standard and will require all plants to come up to the standard of the cleanest of current plants
Is this why the Big Coal and Big Oil Firms are Lobbying to Cut the Funding for the EPA?
| Mar 17, 2011 | New York Times | ||
| WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed the first national standard for emissions of mercury and other pollutants from coal-burning power plants, a rule that could lead to the early closing of a number of older plants and one that is certain to be challenged by the some utilities and Republicans in Congress. Lisa P. Jackson, the agency's administrator, said control of dozens of poisonous substances emitted by power plants was long overdue and would prevent thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of cases of disease a year. Ms. Jackson pointedly included the head of the American Lung Association and two prominent doctors in her announcement to make the point that the regulations were designed to protect public health and not to penalize the utility industry. She estimated the total annual cost of compliance at about $10 billion (This is the Same Projected Cost for New Nuclear Reactors), in line with some industry estimates (although some are much higher), and the health and environmental benefits at more than $100 billion a year. She said that households could expect to see their electric bills rise by $3 to $4 a month when the regulation was fully in force after 2015. Ms. Jackson was acting under a court-ordered deadline to produce a draft rule by Wednesday. "Today's announcement is 20 years in the making and is a significant milestone in the Clean Air Act's already unprecedented record of ensuring our children are protected from the damaging effects of toxic air pollution," she said. Ms. Jackson said that mercury and the other emissions covered by the rule damaged the nervous systems of fetuses and children, aggravated asthma and caused lifelong health damage for hundreds of thousands of Americans. She said that installing and maintaining smokestack scrubbers and other control technology would create 31,000 short-term construction jobs and 9,000 permanent utility sector jobs. Even before the formal unveiling of the rule, some utilities, business groups and Congressional Republicans cast it as the latest salvo in a regulatory war on American industry. They cited a number of recently issued E.P.A. rules, including one on industrial boilers and the first of a series of regulations covering greenhouse gases, which they argue will impose huge costs on businesses and choke off economic recovery. "E.P.A. admits the pending proposal will cost at least $10 billion, making it one of the most expensive rules in the history of the agency," a group of utilities, the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, said in a report this week. "Adaptation to all the proposed rules constitutes an extraordinary threat to the power sector — particularly the half of U.S. electricity derived from coal-fired generation." The group questioned Ms. Jackson's assertion that the technology needed to reduce emissions of mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium and other airborne pollutants was readily available and reasonably inexpensive. The need to retrofit scores of plants in the same short period of time will tax resources and lead to delays, it said. A spokesman for the utility industry's largest trade group, the Edison Electric Institute, said it would be easier for some utilities to comply than others, particularly those that rely more heavily on nuclear power and those that have switched to natural gas for part of their generating capacity. One utility executive said compliance would not be unduly burdensome. "We know from experience that constructing this technology can be done in a reasonable time frame, especially with good advance planning," said Paul Allen, senior vice president and chief environmental officer of Constellation Energy. "And there is meaningful job creation associated with the projects." Public health advocates said utilities had delayed the rules for more than two decades with court challenges and lobbying campaigns. "If you think it's expensive to put a scrubber on a smokestack, you should see how much it costs to treat a child over a lifetime with a birth defect," said Dr. O. Marion Burton, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, who stood with Ms. Jackson in announcing the rule. Roughly half of the nation's more than 400 coal-burning plants have some form of control technology installed, and about a third of states have set their own standards for mercury emissions. But the proposed rule issued Wednesday is the first national standard and will require all plants to come up to the standard of the cleanest of current plants. The new rules bring to a close a bitter legal and regulatory battle dating back to the passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act, which first directed the E.P.A. to identify and control major industrial sources of hazardous emissions. By 1990, however, federal regulators had still not set standards for toxic emissions from power plants, and Congress, in the face of stiff resistance from utilities and coal interests, passed legislation directing the E.P.A. to study the health effects of mercury and other emissions, and to detail the cost and effectiveness of control technologies. In 1998, the agency finally complied, delivering a comprehensive report to Congress detailing the health impact of numerous pollutants, including mercury, which by then had been linked conclusively in multiple studies to serious cognitive harm to fetuses. In December 2000, in the last days of the Clinton administration, the E.P.A. finally listed power plants as a source of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The Bush administration E.P.A. faced its own deadlines to devise and put into effect controls for power plant pollution. But rather than issue emissions standards in line with federal law, in 2005, top agency officials instituted a controversial cap-and-trade program for mercury, despite a warning from agency lawyers that the move would throw the issue back into the courts and almost certainly be reversed. As predicted, a coalition of states and environmentalists sued the agency, arguing that the cap-and-trade program would not limit other toxic emissions like arsenic and would allow the dirtiest power plants to pay for the right to pollute, putting nearby communities at risk. In 2008 a federal judge ruled against the E.P.A., giving the agency three years to develop standards for mercury and other pollutants. The long delay has meant that emissions of some major pollutants have grown in recent years. The E.P.A.'s most recent data shows that from 1999 to 2005, mercury emissions from power plants increased more than 8 percent, to 53 tons from 49 tons. Arsenic emissions grew even more, rising 31 percent, to 210 tons from 160 tons. The E.P.A. will take public comment on the proposed regulations for the next several months. It anticipates publishing a final rule at the end of this year or early next year. The rule would take effect fully three or four years later. | |||
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
3.25.2011
Nuclear crisis forces Japan to rethink energy needs
Mar. 25, 2011 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) -- Reporting from Tokyo-- The first pitch of Japan's baseball season has been pushed back so that people don't waste gasoline driving to games. When the season does start, most night games will be switched to daytime so as not to squander electricity. There'll be no extra innings.
Tokyo's iconic electronic billboards have been switched off. Trash is piling up in many northern Japanese cities because garbage trucks don't have gasoline. Public buildings go unheated. Factories are closed, in large part because of rolling blackouts and because employees can't drive to work with empty tanks.
This is what happens when a 21st century country runs critically low on energy. The March 11 earthquake and tsunami have thrust much of Japan into an unaccustomed dark age that could drag on for up to a year.
"It is dark enough to be a little scary.... To my generation, it is unthinkable to have a shortage of electricity," said Naoki Takano, a pony-tailed 25-year-old salesman at Tower Records in Tokyo's Shibuya district, in normal times infused by pulsing neon lights.
The store has switched off its elevators and the big screen out front that used to play music videos late into the night, a situation that Takano expects to last until summer.
Japan's energy crisis is taking place on two fronts: The explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear compound and the shutdown of other nuclear plants owned by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (OOTC:TKECY) have reduced the supply of electricity to the capital by nearly 30%.
Nine oil refineries also were damaged, including one in Chiba, near Tokyo, which burned spectacularly on television, creating shortages of gasoline and heating oil. Gasoline lines in the northern part of Honshu, Japan's main island, extend for miles. About 30% of the gas stations in the Tokyo area are closed because they have nothing to sell.
Economists say it is difficult to parse out how much is the result of scarcity and how much comes from hoarding.
"We are close to getting back to the gasoline capacity we had before the earthquake, but we are hearing demand has been two- to threefold the normal volume," said Takashi Kono of the policy planning division in the natural resources and fuel department at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. "With that much demand, of course we're looking at a shortage."
The U.S. military has allocated up to 250,000 gallons each of gasoline and diesel for use in the relief operation.
Energy analysts expect the gasoline crisis to ease in the coming weeks as supply lines reopen and panic buying subsides. The electricity shortage, however, is likely to linger for months and might get worse as the weather warms up and people try to turn on their air conditioners.
Tokyo's Asahi Shimbun newspaper on Tuesday quoted an unnamed senior official of Tokyo Electric, which serves 28 million customers, as saying rolling blackouts could last a year.
Electricity is the talk of the town. Newspaper readers pore over detailed schedules of the rolling blackouts printed on the back pages. Many movie theaters are closed, companies have switched off unnecessary lights and advertising, restricted use of elevators and shortened working hours.
For now, gasoline shortages are disrupting both daily life and relief efforts.
In Akita, a city 280 miles north of Tokyo, the few gas stations that are open have lines extending as long as a mile and limit purchases to four gallons. It would hardly be worth the wait, except that people want gas for emergencies -- for example, if they need to flee radiation from the disabled nuclear plant.
The lack of gasoline for delivery trucks has aggravated shortages of key products, especially milk, bread, batteries, toilet paper and mineral water.
"You can't buy anything, you can't go anywhere, you can't do anything. We're basically hanging out at home," said Megumi Fukatsu, an accounting student in Akita.
Some of those left homeless by the quake and tsunami still have cars but can't use them, while relatives who would otherwise rescue them don't have the gas to reach the coastal areas. Some trying to flee the dangerous spewing nuclear plant in Fukushima prefecture weren't able to do so because their gas tanks were empty.
Around Japan, a sympathetic public has been energized to help out earthquake victims with collections of clothing, blankets and food. But there is no way to get the aid to victims.
"Everybody is willing to donate. How we will drive this stuff to the coast, I don't know," said Noriyuki Miyakawa, a 19-year-old from Akita who was stuffing thick, fuzzy sweaters into cartons at a community center.
The electricity shortage will be harder to fix. Nuclear Waste Disposal Crisis
Besides the damage to the nuclear reactors, two thermal power plants were knocked out by the earthquake. And the energy grid in Japan is split in two, a peculiarity that means the energy-starved north cannot borrow from the south.
On the baseball diamond, Japan's Pacific League, which has a team in Sendai near the quake epicenter, has pushed back its season opener until April 12 to allow for rebuilding and energy conservation. The Central League has delayed its opener by four days, until March 29. Both agreed to avoid night games and extra innings.
If there is a silver lining to the crisis, energy analysts say, it will be an awakening in Japan about energy efficiency and conservation.
"It is going to be a different world," said David von Hippel, an energy analyst with the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability, a think tank. He predicts that the nuclear accident at Fukushima will turn Japanese public opinion against nuclear power and force the nation to look more closely at energy efficiency. "They'd done a very good job at improving efficiency in the first two oil shocks in 1974 and 1979, but since 2000, the curve has been pretty flat."
With energy twice as expensive as in the United States, Japan is a world leader in energy-efficient appliances, but homes here are often poorly insulated and bright lights are kept on late into the night for advertising. "You see these all-night vending machines lit up 24/7," said Von Hippel.
Yoko Ogata, 68, of Akita said that young Japanese will have to take a cue from the generation that remembers the deprivation after World War II.
"The young people take it all for granted. They don't know how to cope with shortages the way that we do," said Ogata.
The scope of the disaster does appear to be motivating the younger generation to take action. Students at Meiji Gakuin University in Tokyo last week organized a campaign for earlier bedtimes to save electricity.
"Lights out at 9 p.m.!" wrote the students on Mixi, Japan's most popular social networking site. If "I go to bed three hours early, and I did this for a week, that means I would have saved 21 hours -- almost a full day of electricity -- and I can pass that energy on."
barbara.demick@latimes.com Mar 25, 2011 Los Angeles Times
Special correspondent Yuriko Nagano in Tokyo contributed to this report.
Newstex ID: KRTB-1430-102027817
Tokyo's iconic electronic billboards have been switched off. Trash is piling up in many northern Japanese cities because garbage trucks don't have gasoline. Public buildings go unheated. Factories are closed, in large part because of rolling blackouts and because employees can't drive to work with empty tanks.
This is what happens when a 21st century country runs critically low on energy. The March 11 earthquake and tsunami have thrust much of Japan into an unaccustomed dark age that could drag on for up to a year.
"It is dark enough to be a little scary.... To my generation, it is unthinkable to have a shortage of electricity," said Naoki Takano, a pony-tailed 25-year-old salesman at Tower Records in Tokyo's Shibuya district, in normal times infused by pulsing neon lights.
The store has switched off its elevators and the big screen out front that used to play music videos late into the night, a situation that Takano expects to last until summer.
Japan's energy crisis is taking place on two fronts: The explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear compound and the shutdown of other nuclear plants owned by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (OOTC:TKECY) have reduced the supply of electricity to the capital by nearly 30%.
Nine oil refineries also were damaged, including one in Chiba, near Tokyo, which burned spectacularly on television, creating shortages of gasoline and heating oil. Gasoline lines in the northern part of Honshu, Japan's main island, extend for miles. About 30% of the gas stations in the Tokyo area are closed because they have nothing to sell.
Economists say it is difficult to parse out how much is the result of scarcity and how much comes from hoarding.
"We are close to getting back to the gasoline capacity we had before the earthquake, but we are hearing demand has been two- to threefold the normal volume," said Takashi Kono of the policy planning division in the natural resources and fuel department at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. "With that much demand, of course we're looking at a shortage."
The U.S. military has allocated up to 250,000 gallons each of gasoline and diesel for use in the relief operation.
Energy analysts expect the gasoline crisis to ease in the coming weeks as supply lines reopen and panic buying subsides. The electricity shortage, however, is likely to linger for months and might get worse as the weather warms up and people try to turn on their air conditioners.
Tokyo's Asahi Shimbun newspaper on Tuesday quoted an unnamed senior official of Tokyo Electric, which serves 28 million customers, as saying rolling blackouts could last a year.
Electricity is the talk of the town. Newspaper readers pore over detailed schedules of the rolling blackouts printed on the back pages. Many movie theaters are closed, companies have switched off unnecessary lights and advertising, restricted use of elevators and shortened working hours.
For now, gasoline shortages are disrupting both daily life and relief efforts.
In Akita, a city 280 miles north of Tokyo, the few gas stations that are open have lines extending as long as a mile and limit purchases to four gallons. It would hardly be worth the wait, except that people want gas for emergencies -- for example, if they need to flee radiation from the disabled nuclear plant.
The lack of gasoline for delivery trucks has aggravated shortages of key products, especially milk, bread, batteries, toilet paper and mineral water.
"You can't buy anything, you can't go anywhere, you can't do anything. We're basically hanging out at home," said Megumi Fukatsu, an accounting student in Akita.
Some of those left homeless by the quake and tsunami still have cars but can't use them, while relatives who would otherwise rescue them don't have the gas to reach the coastal areas. Some trying to flee the dangerous spewing nuclear plant in Fukushima prefecture weren't able to do so because their gas tanks were empty.
Around Japan, a sympathetic public has been energized to help out earthquake victims with collections of clothing, blankets and food. But there is no way to get the aid to victims.
"Everybody is willing to donate. How we will drive this stuff to the coast, I don't know," said Noriyuki Miyakawa, a 19-year-old from Akita who was stuffing thick, fuzzy sweaters into cartons at a community center.
The electricity shortage will be harder to fix. Nuclear Waste Disposal Crisis
Besides the damage to the nuclear reactors, two thermal power plants were knocked out by the earthquake. And the energy grid in Japan is split in two, a peculiarity that means the energy-starved north cannot borrow from the south.
On the baseball diamond, Japan's Pacific League, which has a team in Sendai near the quake epicenter, has pushed back its season opener until April 12 to allow for rebuilding and energy conservation. The Central League has delayed its opener by four days, until March 29. Both agreed to avoid night games and extra innings.
If there is a silver lining to the crisis, energy analysts say, it will be an awakening in Japan about energy efficiency and conservation.
"It is going to be a different world," said David von Hippel, an energy analyst with the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability, a think tank. He predicts that the nuclear accident at Fukushima will turn Japanese public opinion against nuclear power and force the nation to look more closely at energy efficiency. "They'd done a very good job at improving efficiency in the first two oil shocks in 1974 and 1979, but since 2000, the curve has been pretty flat."
With energy twice as expensive as in the United States, Japan is a world leader in energy-efficient appliances, but homes here are often poorly insulated and bright lights are kept on late into the night for advertising. "You see these all-night vending machines lit up 24/7," said Von Hippel.
Yoko Ogata, 68, of Akita said that young Japanese will have to take a cue from the generation that remembers the deprivation after World War II.
"The young people take it all for granted. They don't know how to cope with shortages the way that we do," said Ogata.
The scope of the disaster does appear to be motivating the younger generation to take action. Students at Meiji Gakuin University in Tokyo last week organized a campaign for earlier bedtimes to save electricity.
"Lights out at 9 p.m.!" wrote the students on Mixi, Japan's most popular social networking site. If "I go to bed three hours early, and I did this for a week, that means I would have saved 21 hours -- almost a full day of electricity -- and I can pass that energy on."
barbara.demick@latimes.com Mar 25, 2011 Los Angeles Times
Special correspondent Yuriko Nagano in Tokyo contributed to this report.
Newstex ID: KRTB-1430-102027817
3.03.2011
Nuclear is not the Answer-Dan Rather
For everyone who says nuclear waste is not harmful-- Lets put the Nuclear Waste in your Back Yard.
Nuclear Reactors
Dan RatherBut there's an increasingly urgent need in this country for a clean, carbon-free energy source. And to nuclear advocates, the answer lies not in burning dirty coal but with old-fashioned atomic fission. America was the first to harness the awesome power of atoms for peaceful purposes (and not so peaceful purposes.) As for safety concerns? We toured a research reactor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and director Dr. David Moncton told us the significance of Three Mile Island has been misunderstood. "What happened there was the nuclear equivalent of landing on the Hudson," Moncton said. An accident all right, but one that was brought under control before anyone was harmed. As for the deadly explosion at Chernobyl, Moncton told us our reactors are designed with a completely different technology that would make such an accident here impossible.
But even nuclear supporters concede that nuclear power remains hobbled by its price tag and the unanswered question of what to do with all that leftover radioactive waste that nuclear power generates. So what if there was a way to build nuclear power plants that were smaller, more affordable, and that even solved -- or at least greatly reduced -- the waste issue? I recently met entrepreneurs and scientists with radical ideas to do just that.
Dr. Eric Loewen oversees advanced reactor designs at GE-Hitachi, in Wilmington, NC. He's peddling a new nuclear reactor called the PRISM that actually runs on the waste generated by current reactors. The technology exists to recycle spent fuel, he says, it's the political will that's lacking.
The PRISM has a rich pedigree that dates back to the early 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan launched a little-known research project in the Idaho desert. We traveled out to the Arco Desert and toured a moth-balled reactor with retired scientist Dr. Charles Till, where Till spent ten years and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to prove that recycling nuclear fuel could work. Till told us the government pulled the plug on the project before it was 100% proven. It was a mistake, according to Till and Loewen. "They were completely wrong," Loewen told me.
While Loewen wants to recycle nuclear fuel, there's a brother-sister team that want to make nuclear more affordable, by shrinking it. John "Grizz" Deal and his sister Deborah Blackwell have a "hot tub" sized reactor, one they envision can be factory-produced and then transported by truck or rail wherever needed. Each reactor provides enough electricity for 20,000 homes. Perfect, they say for the developing world, small towns, or even military installations.
But these visionaries are getting ahead of themselves, according to Dr. Ernest Moniz, a renowned physics professor at MIT and a member of President Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. "I feel like I'm a technology Luddite or something in saying this," Moniz told me, "For the next ten, twenty years, if we're going to build nuclear power, it's going to be fundamentally based around what you see and the so-called generation III+ reactors." In other words, more traditional, large nuclear power plants, financed with government help.
Whether the government is on the right path is a point of contention, but on one point, everyone I interviewed agrees. Nuclear power is the solution, they say, and it's time to get going. Their next challenge is winning over skeptics, who thought the horrors of Chernobyl killed the nuclear option a long time ago.
Dan Rather Reports airs Tuesdays on HDNet at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET. This episode is also available on iTunes.
Here is some info on Nuclear Waste Courtesy of Wiki.com
Category:Nuclear waste
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
English: Nuclear waste consists of the waste products of processes involving nuclear reactions. It is most commonly associated with nuclear reactors.
2.02.2011
January Highlights Renewable Energy Issues in the USA
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Adam Browning, Vote Solar <adam@votesolar.org> wrote:
Scott's ContractingFriends,
January. Was that really just one month? If February follows the same pace, we might need the rest of the year off. An update of activities:
Get Some Sun Webinars:
All free, all available here. Don't miss 'SMUD's Goldilocks approach to solar policy', on Wednesday (that's today!). Newly scheduled:
California Interconnection 101
Sky Stanfield of Keyes & Fox, LLP, who represents the Interstate Renewable Energy Council on the issue, will provide an update on the interconnection reform occurring in California. In December, FERC approved the CAISO's proposed modifications to their Small Generator Interconnection Procedures. SCE and PG&E are both in the process of proposing similar reforms to their Wholesale Distribution Access Tariffs. This webinar will discuss the changes and some of the potential implications for wholesale distributed generation solar in the state. Presented jointly with IREC.
Solar in New Home Construction
Solar in New Home Construction: it's a promising idea…and has been for a long time. Walter Cuculic is an expert in the field, and will describe the current state of activity, benefits and motivations for all stakeholders involved, and best practices for promoting progress.
Update from Gainesville
Over two years ago, GRU adopted a feed-in tariff. How's it working? What changes have been made? What lessons can be shared? Bill Shepherd and John Crider of the Gainesville Regional Utility, and Pegeen Hanrahan, former Mayor of Gainesville, will provide an update and recommendations for other jurisdictions.
The West:
California – Renewing the push for 33%. As the hard-won 1,000 MW RAM moves forward through the commission, major utilities have challenged the pioneering new renewable program on the grounds that they can't be obligated to do more than the current 20% legislative standard. All this monkey business reinforces the need to (finally) get California's 33% renewable energy goal locked down in the legislature as soon as possible. Adam's words on the matter were featured on Northern California's NPR affiliate, KQED. Meanwhile, check this out: SCE went big with ~800 MW, but also small, with 250 MW of mid-sized PV projects, at rates lower than natural gas combined cycle turbines. If your state would like some too, all you have to do is ask--no one is going to sell if you don't ask to buy.
Northern California – Setting solar-friendly electricity rates: PG&E has proposed changes to its residential rate structure that would adversely impact solar customers. Gwen is leading our intervention; she's provided expert testimony and extensive rate impact analysis in the rate case to protect current and future solar customers in California's largest utility territory. The case is now being litigated, and with representation from the pros at Keyes & Fox, LLC, the fun continues.
Arizona – Preserving the renewable plan: With new leadership in the ACC, state utility regulators decided to re-open Arizona Public Service's 2011 Renewable Energy Standard Implementation Plan that was approved last year. We got involved to stress the importance of regulatory certainty and highlight issues that could be adversely impacted by the decision. Solar Alliance and AZ SEIA led the charge--won some, lost some. Next up: SRP wants to revisit its voluntary renewable goals. That should be fun.
Nevada -- gearing up for 400 MW of DG. There's a great coalition in place, and next week is Solar 101 for a new crop of policymakers.
Regional utility-scale solar – Reshaping the planning paradigm. If the acronyms CA-ISO, CTPG, LTPP, WECC, TEPCC and FERC NOPR mean anything to you, first, we empathize, and second, we've been actively involved in all of them to help maximize smart renewable growth and minimize extraneous fossil fuel development in electricity transmission and resource planning across the western states. Listen in on our upcoming PV Output Variability webinar to learn more about integrating renewables into the grid.
Northeast:
Connecticut & New York – Getting major new solar programs across the finish line. Our northeastern coalitions are back and bigger than ever, working to bring a 350+ MW solar program to Connecticut and a whopping 5,000 MW to New York. These are two of our biggest campaigns, and we're optimistic that 2011 is the year we'll get them both across the finish line. If you live or do business in these states, stay tuned for ways to get involved.
Mid-Atlantic:
Advancing new community solar models. Following the launch of our new community solar web resource, we have been preparing for new campaigns in DC, MD, PA and CT. In Delaware, the state's recently-passed community solar program is already in the implementation phase at the utility commission; we are working with IREC and others on program design.
Midwest:
Missouri – Protecting the Prop C Renewable Program. The state's voter-approved 15% by 2021 RES is nearly up and running, but now it faces a threat from state legislators who want to remove the in-state development requirement – a key component to ensuring Missouri ratepayers see the economic and environmental benefits of their renewable investment. With our stalwart partners at Renew Missouri, we're fighting back. Do you hail from Missouri? Add your voice here.
Scotty Inserts the following St Louis Renewable Energy Blog Postings in re to Missouri Energy Propositions:
- http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/2011/02/join-me-in-open-letter-to-mo-governor.html
- http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/2011/01/re-senate-bill-50-missouri-nuclear.html
- Re: Senate Bill 50- Missouri Nuclear Agenda Just Say NO. Collection of Examples for Solar vs. Nuclear- Energy Production Debate and Proposed Bill Missourians, Don't let the TV Ads confuse you read this
Renewable Energy Head-to-Head with Nuclear for Clean Energy Production.Last July we wrote about the North Carolina study that showed solarpower to be cheaper than power promised by planned...
- "the following post is a response I received from"
New state efforts. January might not seem like the best time to tour the Midwest. But Californian's are easily tricked (really? a heat wave?) and frankly, the trip was as invigorating as, well, the 20-below weather. Minnesota has an impressive coalition of organizations geared up for one of the most ambitious state solar campaigns in the nation: 10% solar by 2030. We are really looking forward to this one. Get involved here.
And Iowa... let's just say they are teaming up with the NFL to sack coal. More fun than the Super Bowl. Details here.
Next edition we promise more on Florida, Maryland, and East Coast states.
PS: We've also set the date for our next Equinox party: March 21 in San Francisco. It'll be our fifth annual celebration and fundraiser, and we're aiming to make it a milestone year that will live in infamy. We already have a stellar roster of solar industry sponsors lined-up to support. Please contact rosalind@votesolar.org if you'd like to join them. And we hope to see you in March!
Onwards –
Adam + Team
The Vote Solar Initiative
300 Brannan Street, Suite 609
San Francisco, CA 94107
www.votesolar.org
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
Join me in an Open Letter to MO Governor Nixon- Protect Renewable Energy for Our STATE!
Open Letter to Gov. Nixon to Protect Renewable Energy in Missouri
[LINK- Click Here to join the list of signers] |
| Example of Clean- NON Polluting - Energy Production |
Dear Governor Nixon:
I am grateful for your strong support of energy efficiency and renewable energy in your tenure as Governor thus far. Today, I ask you to continue your support of renewable energy in Missouri and the creation of in-state clean energy jobs by vetoing SCR1.
SCR1 aims to remove the “sold to Missouri” requirement from the 2008 voter-enacted Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). If this resolution were to pass into law, Missouri would lose the nine thousand clean-energy jobs and the billions of dollars in economic development, state taxes, and worker payrolls the MO RES was expected to create.
Please veto SCR1 and ensure that renewable energy is being created locally and sold directly to Missouri consumers. The development of in-state renewable energy sources will have a profound economic impact on communities across the state, whether they produce renewable energy, manufacture components, or supply the labor or materials to develop these projects.
Thank you for your dedication to renewable energy in Missouri. Please take this opportunity to continue your support of renewable energy in Missouri by vetoing SCR1.
Sincerely,
SCR1 aims to remove the “sold to Missouri” requirement from the 2008 voter-enacted Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). If this resolution were to pass into law, Missouri would lose the nine thousand clean-energy jobs and the billions of dollars in economic development, state taxes, and worker payrolls the MO RES was expected to create.
Please veto SCR1 and ensure that renewable energy is being created locally and sold directly to Missouri consumers. The development of in-state renewable energy sources will have a profound economic impact on communities across the state, whether they produce renewable energy, manufacture components, or supply the labor or materials to develop these projects.
Thank you for your dedication to renewable energy in Missouri. Please take this opportunity to continue your support of renewable energy in Missouri by vetoing SCR1.
Sincerely,
[LINK- Click Here to join the list of signers]
[Click here to view the entire list of signers]1.30.2011
Sen McCaskill Response about Nuclear Energy Power Plants
the following post is a response I received from an email I sent to Senator McCaskill about:
From: senator@mccaskill.senate.gov
To: scottscontracting@gmail.com (Provided in Full)Dear Mr. Scott,
Thank you for contacting me regarding nuclear energy. I appreciate hearing from you, and welcome the opportunity to respond.
As the United States seeks to become more energy independent and reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) it will be important to diversify our investments in all available energy sources. Renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and biomass will play a valuable role in achieving these objectives. However, our country's energy needs are considerable, and they continue to grow. Even accounting for rapid expansion in recent years, renewable sources provide only a small percentage of our country's total energy production. We simply can't address our energy needs through increased production of renewable energy alone.
To meet our energy demand, we must invest in a diversity of energy sources and new technologies. Responsible development of new nuclear facilities, carbon capture and sequestration technology to reduce GHG emissions currently associated with coal energy, and expanded use of natural gas will all be necessary.
Along with significant investments in renewable energy, in February 2010, the Department of Energy announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees to support the construction of two new nuclear reactors at a plant in Georgia. This will be the first new nuclear power plant constructed in the United States in three decades. To provide additional loan guarantees for other planned nuclear facilities, President Obama requested an increase in federal loan guarantee authority, from the current limit of $18.5 billion to $54 billion, in his fiscal year (FY) 2011 budget proposal. It is important to note that this authority regards authorization for loan guarantees, not funding for direct subsidies or payments. In addition to repaying the loans themselves, borrowers are required to pay fees to cover both administrative costs and risk of defaulting on the loan.
I support providing additional loan guarantee authority for the construction of new nuclear facilities. However, I have concerns that the fees charged to borrowers may be insufficient to cover the costs of the guarantee. In the past, the Congressional Budget Office has calculated that the Department of Energy often underestimates the costs of loan guarantees by at least one percent. As we consider increasing nuclear loan guarantee authority, I want to be sure that the federal government is collecting fees sufficient to cover costs and protect taxpayers.
Additionally, as our country moves to expand nuclear energy production and open new facilities, it is important that we address the issue of long-term nuclear waste disposal. Although funding for security measures has been increased in recent years, there is some concern that the number of storage sites presents an unnecessary security risk, and that a central repository would be a better solution to the issue of nuclear waste storage.
For more than 20 years, the Department of Energy has focused on developing a central repository for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This effort has been controversial, and opponents have argued that the potential for earthquakes, water infiltration, and other safety concerns make the site unsuitable. The President's FY 2011 budget proposes eliminating funding for work at Yucca Mountain, and White House officials have stated that they will officially withdraw a pending license application for the facility. In January 2010, the Obama Administration announced the formation of a Blue Ribbon Commission charged with conducting a comprehensive review of nuclear waste management policy. It remains to be seen whether Yucca Mountain will provide the best option for long term storage for our country's nuclear waste, or if another solution needs to be found.
There are many legislative proposals concerning nuclear power currently being discussed and debated in the Senate, addressing incentives for new commercial reactors, research and development priorities, plant safety and security, and radioactive waste management policy. During this session of Congress, the Senate may consider broad-based energy and climate change legislation. Should the Senate consider such legislation, ideas from many of the legislative proposals that have been introduced to address nuclear energy issues would likely be incorporated. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to find solutions to our country's energy challenges.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.
Sincerely,
Claire McCaskill
United States Senator
United States Senator
P.S. If you would like more information about resources that can help Missourians, or what I am doing in the Senate on your behalf, please sign up for my email newsletter at www.mccaskill.senate.gov.
_______________________
Tell My Politician
-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician Click Here
TellMyPolitician Click Here ______________________
Jan 28, 2011
Solar is the Best Form of Renewable Energy- I don't consider Nuclear Energy a form of Renewable Energy since the Waste will be placed in the Ground- IE: It could pollute the Water our Bodies Must Have-We Consume Everyday ...
Jan 26, 2011
Renewable Energy Head-to-Head with Nuclear for Clean Energy Production.Last July we wrote about the North Carolina study that showed solarpower to be cheaper than power promised by planned nuclearconstruction in that state. ...
Oct 04, 2010
Here's another tidbit from the conference: Adding nuclear power into the mix of renewables might provide the political muscle to pass a federal RPS. After all, it IS carbon-free. Proponents claim, "Nuclear energy presents a safe, clean, ...
1.28.2011
Re: Senate Bill 50- Missouri Nuclear Agenda Just Say NO
Collection of Examples for Solar vs. Nuclear- Energy Production Debate and Proposed Bill
- Missourians, Don't let the TV Ads on Senate Bill 50 Fool You. Read the Information for yourself-I've supplied all the web links where I found the Info.
- Solar is the Best Form of Renewable Energy- I don't consider Nuclear Energy a form of Renewable Energy since the Waste will be placed in the Ground- IE: It could pollute the Water our Bodies Must Have-We Consume Everyday
- I do not Support Nuclear Energy for Our State or any other State
Tell My Politician- Web Site that will direct you to your Elected Representatives-Republican or Democrat, Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested
_____________________
Solar and Nuclear Costs —
The Historic Crossover
Solar Energy is Now the Better Buy
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf
___________
Easy to understand Solar Vs Nuclear Photos http://www.jeffreyventrella.com/Solar/solar.html
_____________
Which Is Cheaper? Nuclear vs. Solar http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/07/which-is-cheaper-nuclear-vs-solar/
The study's premise is that traditional energy supplies including fossil and nuclear energy are experiencing what economists called "upward cost curves" or in other words, their costs keep going up and are not likely to ever go back down. However, the research claims of Blackburn/Cunningham are that renewable energy has achieved a "downward cost curve" over the last decade, namely that their prices have gone down and there is a strong likelihood that they will continue to fall in price.
By Bill Roth | July 20th, 2010
____________
Report: Solar Energy Cheaper Than Nuclear Energy http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/08/01/solar-energy-cheaper-than-nuclear-energy/
Cost estimates for new nuclear plants have risen dramatically since the much-heralded "nuclear renaissance" began during the past decade, says Blackburn. "Projects first announced with costs in the $2 billion range per reactor have seen several revisions as detailed planning proceeds and numerous design and engineering problems have emerged. The latest price estimates are in the $10 billion range per reactor."
The costs for solar photovoltaic (PV) systems have fallen steadily while construction costs for new nuclear power plants have been rising over the past decade, which now makes electricity generated from new solar installations cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear power plants, according to a new report published by a retired Duke University professor.
_________________
http://solar.calfinder.com/blog/solar-information/nuclear-vs-solar-2/
These are the advantages, put simply, that I can see right now. There are proponents of one, the other, or both. I see a brighter future for solar for three reasons:
1. It is completely, even daily, renewable.
2. Solar is fast advancing. We are likely on the cusp of a technological windfall for solar power.
3. The risks for nuclear power are high and unlikely to get resolved soon. So far it seems that, in an attempt to stop polluting the sky, we would throw our toxins into the ground.
_______________________
According to Norman Baker, the environment spokesperson... turning to nuclear power to tackle climate change is "like jumping from the frying pan to the fire". "Nuclear power may not contribute to carbon emissions, but it generates tonnes of radioactive wastes costing billions to store and will pose a risk to humans for thousands of years after disposal," he added.
Darren Johnson... said nuclear reactors had an operational life of between 30 and 40 years but created waste that lasted "thousands" of years. "It is barking mad to consider nuclear power as part of a sustainable energy policy," he opined.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/441990/nuclear_vs_solar_energy_which/
___________________
SB 50- Allows electric companies to recover costs from ratepayers associated with early site development for certain electrical generation facilities
SB 50 - Beginning October 1, 2011, any electric company seeking an Early Site Permit from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission must submit reports to the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC) every 6 months. The reports must document the work completed and costs incurred up to that point toward the acquisition of the Early Site Permit as well as the projected amount of work and costs remaining. If the total cost of obtaining the Early Site Permit is expected to exceed $40 million, the company must also include an explanation in its reports as to why expenditures beyond that amount are prudent.Once the Early Site Permit is obtained, the electric company may recover the expenditures for the permit from its ratepayers through rates and charges over a period not to exceed 20 years. The company may begin the cost recovery on the effective date of tariffs approved by the PSC at the company's first general rate proceeding following the acquisition of the permit. Other electric companies that also incur expenses toward the Early Site Permit may similarly recover their costs through rates and charges.
If an electric company has recovered costs from its ratepayers for an Early Site Permit but the company's interest in the Early Site Permit is subsequently sold or transferred, the company must refund its ratepayers up to the amount that the company collected from the ratepayers for the permit.
ERIKA JAQUESSenate Bill 50 is sponsored by: Kehoe -http://www.senate.mo.gov/-Capitol Office:201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 429,Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-2076 FAX: (573) 751-2582 EMail Senator Kehoe
__________________________
Say NO to SB 50- December 10th, 2010-Consumers Council of Missouri calls on customers of AmerenUE
to say NO to the newest legislative attempt to overturn Anti-CWIP law. http://moconsumers.org/2010/12/10/say-no-to-sb-50/#comment-8171
____________________________
Jan 21, 2011 (FIND, Inc. via COMTEX) --
Ameren Missouri; Combined License Application for Callaway Plant Unit 2; Exemption
Posted on: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:37:07 EST- http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/aee_uepcp_ameren-missouri-combined-license-application-for-callaway-plant-unit-2-exemption-1436866.html
1.0 Background
Union Electric Company, doing business as Ameren UE, submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) a Combined License (COL) Application for a single unit of AREVA NP's U.S. EPR in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), subpart C of part 52, "Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants." This reactor is to be identified as Callaway Plant (Callaway), Unit 2, and located at the current Callaway County, Missouri site of the Callaway Power Plant. The Callaway, Unit 2, COL application is based upon and linked to the U.S. EPR reference COL (RCOL) application for UniStar's Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 (CCNPP3). The NRC docketed the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application on December 12, 2008. In its letter to the NRC dated April 28, 2009, Ameren informed that it was suspending its efforts to build a nuclear power plant in Missouri. Subsequently, by letter dated June 23, 2009, Ameren requested the NRC to suspend all review activities relating to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application. The NRC informed Ameren by letter dated June 29, 2009, that it had suspended all review activities relating to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application. The NRC is currently performing a detailed review of the CCNPP3 RCOL application, as well as AREVA NP's application for design certification of the U.S. EPR.
2.0 Request/Action
The regulations specified in 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) require that an applicant for a combined license under 10 CFR part 52 shall, during the period from docketing of a COL application until the Commission makes a finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g) pertaining to facility operation, submit an annual update to the application's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), which is a part of the application.
On February 25, 2009, Ameren submitted Revision 1 to the COL application, including updates to the FSAR. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii), the next annual update would be due in December 2010. Union Electric Company, doing business as Ameren Missouri (Ameren) as of October 1, 2010, as noted in its letter to the NRC dated October 26, 2010, has requested a one-time exemption from the 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) requirements to submit the scheduled 2010 and 2011 COL application FSAR updates, and proposed for approval of a new submittal deadline of December 31, 2012, for the next FSAR update.
In summary, the requested exemption is a one-time schedule change from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). The exemption would allow Ameren to submit the next FSAR update at a later date, but still in advance of NRC's reinstating its review of the application and in any event, by December 31, 2012. The current FSAR update schedule could not be changed, absent the exemption. Ameren requested the exemption by letter dated October 26, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Number ML103090556).
3.0 Discussion
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the NRC may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, including Section 50.71(e)(3)(iii) when: (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) special circumstances are present. As relevant to the requested exemption, special circumstances exist if: (1) "Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)); (2) "Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was
[Page Number 3928]
adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii)); or (3) "The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v)).
The review of the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application FSAR has been suspended since June 29, 2009. Since the COL application FSAR is directly linked to the CCNPP3 RCOL application, many changes in the RCOL application require an associated change to the COL application FSAR and, because the NRC review of the COL application is suspended, the updates to the FSAR will not be reviewed by the NRC staff until the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application review is resumed. Thus, the optimum time to prepare a revision to the COL application FSAR is sometime prior to Ameren requesting the NRC to resume its review. To prepare and submit a COL application FSAR update when the review remains suspended and in the absence of any decision by Ameren to request the NRC to resume the review would require Ameren to spend significant time and effort and would be of no value, particularly due to the fact that the RCOL application and the U.S. EPR FSAR are still undergoing periodic revisions and updates. Furthermore, the adjudicatory proceedings related to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application were terminated by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) after agreements were made between Ameren, the NRC, and the petitioners for intervention, as documented in "AMERENUE (Callaway Plant Unit 2) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and Terminating Contested Adjudicatory Proceeding) LBP-09-23 (August 28, 2009)" (ML092400189). Ameren commits to submit the next FSAR update prior to any request to the NRC to resume review of the COL application and, in any event, by December 31, 2012. Ameren would need to identify all committed changes to the RCOL application since the last revisions to the RCOL application and the U.S. EPR FSAR in order to prepare a COL application FSAR revision that accurately and completely reflects the committed changes to the RCOL application as well as the U.S. EPR FSAR.
The requested one-time exemption to defer submittal of the next update to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application FSAR would provide only temporary relief from the regulations of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). Ameren has made good faith efforts to comply with 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) by submitting Revision 1 to the COL application dated February 25, 2009, prior to requesting the review suspension. Revision 1 incorporated information provided in prior supplements and standardized language with the RCOL application.
Authorized by Law:
The exemption is a one-time schedule exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). The exemption would allow Ameren to submit the next Callaway Unit 2 COL application FSAR update on or before December 31, 2012, in lieu of the required scheduled submittals in December 2010, and December 2011. As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions. The NRC staff has determined that granting Ameren the requested one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) will provide only temporary relief from this regulation and will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the NRC's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety:
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) is to provide for a timely and comprehensive update of the FSAR associated with a COL application in order to support an effective and efficient review by the NRC staff and issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. The requested exemption is solely administrative in nature, in that it pertains to the schedule for submittal to the NRC of revisions to an application under 10 CFR part 52, for which a license has not been granted. In addition, since the review of the application has been suspended, any update to the application submitted by Ameren will not be reviewed by the NRC at this time.
Based on the nature of the requested exemption as described above, no new accident precursors are created by the exemption; thus, neither the probability nor the consequences of postulated accidents are increased. Therefore, there is no undue risk to public health and safety.
Consistent with Common Defense and Security:
The requested exemption would allow Ameren to submit the next FSAR update prior to requesting the NRC to resume the review and, in any event, on or before December 31, 2012. This schedule change has no relation to security issues. Therefore, the common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption.
Special Circumstances:
Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), are present whenever: (1) "Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)); (2) "Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii)); or (3) "The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v)).
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) is to provide for a timely and comprehensive update of the FSAR associated with a COL application in order to support an effective and efficient review by the NRC staff and issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. As discussed above, the requested one-time exemption is solely administrative in nature, in that it pertains to a one-time schedule change for submittal of revisions to an application under 10 CFR Part 52, for which a license has not been granted. The requested one-time exemption will permit Ameren time to carefully review the most recent revisions of the CCNPP3 RCOL application as well as the U.S. EPR FSAR, and fully incorporate these revisions into a comprehensive update of the Callaway, Unit 2, FSAR associated with the COL application. This one-time exemption will support the NRC staff's effective and efficient review of the COL application when resumed, as well as issuance of the safety evaluation report, and therefore does not affect the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). Under the circumstances that Ameren has suspended its pursuit of the COL, the NRC has suspended its review of the application, and the adjudicatory proceedings have been terminated by ASLB, application of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) would result in Ameren spending significant time and effort in incorporating changes made to the RCOL application into the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application, but not achieve the underlying purpose of that rule; granting a one-time exemption from 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) would provide only temporary relief; and Ameren has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation; therefore, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR
[Page Number 3929]
50.12(a)(2) for the granting of an exemption from 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) exist.
4.0 Conclusion
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the NRC hereby grants Ameren a one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) pertaining to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application to allow submittal of the next FSAR update prior to any request to the NRC to resume the review and, in any event, no later than December 31, 2012.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the NRC has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (76 FR 800).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of January 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph Colaccino,
Chief, EPR Projects Branch, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
[FR Doc. 2011-1263 Filed 1-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Vol. 76, No. 014
[Docket No. 52-037; NRC-2008-0556]
Notices
For full details on Ameren Corp (AEE) AEE. Ameren Corp (AEE) has Short Term PowerRatings at TradingMarkets. Details on Ameren Corp (AEE) Short Term PowerRatings is available at This Link.
For full details on (UEPCP) UEPCP. (UEPCP) has Short Term PowerRatings at TradingMarkets. Details on (UEPCP) Short Term PowerRatings is available at This Link.
_________________________
Tell My Politician-
http://tellmypolitician.com/search?
-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Featured Post
-
Thank You for stopping by the Green Blog. If additional information in needed or you have a question let me know by posting a question or ...
-
Making a decorative axe from melted copper wire by u/SinjiOnO in oddlysatisfying Thank You for stopping by the Gree...
[1]As for the Costs Graphs Show- Nuclear Energy is not needed for Clean Energy Production-Renewable Energy Head-to-Head with Nuclear for Clean Energy Production.[Last July we wrote about the North Carolina study that showed solar power to be cheaper than power promised by planned nuclear construction in that state]
[2]Cost estimates for new nuclear plants have risen dramatically since the much-heralded "nuclear renaissance" began during the past decade, says Blackburn. "Projects first announced with costs in the $2 billion range per reactor have seen several revisions as detailed planning proceeds and numerous design and engineering problems have emerged. The latest price estimates are in the $10 billion range per reactor."
For the Billions Spent in Nuclear Plant Construction- the $ would buy an Astronomical Number of Solar Panels that produce clean Energy. There are even Solar Panel Manufacturing Facilities in the USA- who employ American Workers.
Mr Rather is mistaken on Nuclear Energy, for the simple fact that there is WASTE and It is HAZARDOUS. The states that did except it at one time don't want any more. see my blogs for additional info
On with the Article by Mr Dan Rathers- via: HuffingtonPost.com