Letter Opposing MO Sen Robin Wright-Jones Nuclear Agenda

Missouri Senator Robin Wright-Jones I strongly urge you to stop the Support of Ameren UEs Nuclear Agenda.  The past does repeat itself and Missouri can do better than Nuclear Energy for Clean Energy Production.

Here are my top 10 reasons-with examples on why I I do not support Ameren UE's Nuclear Agenda.

1) 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   

•  US Department of Energy Statistics on Energy Efficiency-Saves 10% Energy Costs, 20-30% Heating/AC Costs. 
  

2) the proposed legislation would chip away at a 1976 ballot initiative supported 2-to-1 by Missouri voters. (A law that the Voting Citizens of Missouri Enacted)

• legislation-SB 321 and SB 406- 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.

3)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.  The citizens will be on the hook for 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.  

4)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. 

• 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."  

                                                                                                                                                                    

5)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.
• Missouri has Adequate Clean Energy Resources from via: Photovoltaic Electricity and GEO Thermal.  Both of which has no harmful side effects- Such as Nuclear Waste.
  

6)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.
  

7) Per Nuclear Reactor in Florida 6 Billion in Projected Costs ends up with total costs of 22 Billion over Budget                                                                                                                                                

8) The Proposed Nuclear Site is not too far away from the New Madrid Fault Line that Scientist say has a high chance of having an earth quake.  Only the Northwestern Pacific Rim has a higher chance of Rupturing.

9) If there is a Nuclear Disaster our Great Missouri Land will be destroyed.  Just Like the disaster Japan is currently going thru and what the Soviets went thru with Chernobyl.  I for one don't want to see the Great Missouri Farmland Polluted from Nuclear Waste.

10) There is no safe way to dispose of the Nuclear Waste.  The Citizens of Nevada have already put a stop to the proposed nuclear waste burial in their back yard- Yucca Mountain.

All the Information Provided on this Article is from the Green Blog: St Louis Renewable Energy I give the sources for all the information provided.  Please research the True Costs of Nuclear.  It is clearly not what Missouri Needs- when there are more feasible alternatives- that not only cost less but have no harmful effects to the Environment.

I urge Everyone who opposes this Nuclear Movement to contact your legislation Department at: Missouri Legislature Contact Link 

Listen to Her Interview about the Ameren UE Nuclear Agenda-
"The Way I Roll" http://www.missourinet.com/2011/04/14/nuclear-plant-site-bill-delayed-audio/
--

Article Posted on: St louis Renewable Energy, Facebook, Scotts Contracting and Twitter 

Care2.com (tags: destruction, radio-active, Nuclear waste, nuclear waste storage, nuclear waste nightmare, nuclear waste management, radioactive waste, radioactivity, Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe, Japan Nuclear Effects of Japan ) 

Scott's Contracting

Green Me UP-Scotty

scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
http://twitter.com/StLHandyMan
https://www.facebook.com/GreenMeUPScotty

Join Me to Protest Ameren UE's Nuclear Reactor Agenda

Protest

Ameren Shareholders Meeting

 

Thursday, April 21 · 7:30am - 9:30am

 

Powell Symphony Hall, 718 N Grand Blvd, Saint Louis, MO

Ameren Missouri is holding their annual Meeting of Shareholders to vote on several issues pertaining to their governing laws.

 

The anti-CWIP law states that investor-owned utilities, like Ameren, are not allowed to collect money from ratepayers for costs associated with new power plants until they are producing electricity. 

 

This law saved Ameren ratepayers $400 million after the completion of the 1st nuclear reactor in Callaway County. Ameren wants to repeal part of this law. Know the talking points and make a difference.

 

----------

Find Additional Information on Ameren UE and Nuclear Energy

Ameren UE's Greed Missouri Nuclear Agenda

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 Institute

When President Obama ran for President, it seemed to me that he really understood the need to transition our economy from fossil fuels to renewable energy. After eight years of Dick Cheney's Texas oil industry energy policy, it was a relief to hear Obama's perspective. As the campaign evolved, and certainly once he took office, the President decided that political expedience required that he favor nuclear power and deep sea oil drilling. My guess is that he is now a little less enthusiastic about these technologies. In fact, every so often he resumes his rhetorical push for renewable energy.

The 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?

____________________

A No-Win Ethical Dilemma

Kelly Rigg Executive Director, GCCA crosspost via Huff Post Green

Workers 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:

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

Latest News on Missouri Nuclear Reactor Agenda

Nuclear siting bill awaits committee action (AUDIO))

by Bob Priddy on March 31, 2011 cross-posted via: Missourinet

 

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.

Kehoe comments 7:38 mp3                   crowell comments 4:03 mp3

Find Additional News on Missouri's Nuclear Agenda Here

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

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
  

• US Department of Energy Statistics on Energy Efficiency-Saves 10% Energy Costs, 20-30% Heating/AC Costs. 
  

• 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:  

1.  
   "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

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

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-

• 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

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

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.

­

English: Nuclear waste consists of the waste products of processes involving nuclear reactions. It is most commonly associated with nuclear reactors.

[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."

" Nuclear Energy is not Clean Energy for the simple fact of the hazardous waste that is left over". Scotty

Energy Generated by the Sun via Solar Panels for Electricit­y produces NO WASTE- Just Clean Energy.

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 

Nuclear Reactors

Dan Rather

Host, Dan Rather Report

For many Americans, the words "nuclear power" still conjure up images of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, fears of meltdowns or radioactive leaks. Those reactor failures helped drive the U.S. nuclear industry into dormancy in the late 1970s.

But 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.

 

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:

Friends,

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
  

• 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 solarpower to be cheaper than power promised by planned...

• • Sen McCaskill Response about Nuclear Energy Power...
  "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

Scott's Contracting
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,

[LINK- Click Here to join the list of signers]

[Click here to view the entire list of signers]

38.567440 -90.260831

This entry was posted in Green Links and tagged Green in Missouri, Missouri Regs under Attack, Missouri Renewable Energy Policy, Poli.