Re: Why Nuclear Energy is Wrong For Missouri

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Scott's Contracting <scottscontracting@gmail.com> wrote:

I do not support any Nuclear Plants in Missouri or any other State for the following reasons:

1. Scientist do not have long term solutions for waste disposal
2. Solar Energy aka: Renewable Energy is cheaper and less damaging to the environment- http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-study-shows-solar-power-is-cheaper.html
   
3. Nuclear Power PLANT CONSTRUCTION IS ASTRONOMICAL- We the Consumers Fund the Projects (see below-$26 billion so far)
   

What happens in USA and Europe?(copied from: http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/wast.htm)

In USA high-level civil wastes all remain as used fuel stored at the reactor sites. It is planned to encapsulate these fuel assemblies and dispose of them in an underground engineered repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This is the program which has been funded by electricity consumers to US $26 billion so far (ie @ 0.1 cent per kWh), of which about US $6 billion has been spent. 

Yucca Mountain:

YUCCA MOUNTAIN - POLITICO's Robin Bravender reports that a Reid loss would likely give new life to the project, which would be welcome news to the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear lawmakers who see the lack of a long-term repository as a roadblock for a U.S. nuclear renaissance. http://politi.co/dtgRrZ

copied from: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44455.html

"Nuclear power has become a central tenet of congressional Republican's energy agenda; senators like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Lamar Alexander say expanding the power source will help to cut dependence on foreign oil and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Democrats and the Obama administration have shown a willingness to compromise on the issue, and nuclear is posed to be a focal point of energy talks next year on Capitol Hill if Republicans make major electoral gains."

Most Republicans have supported the Yucca repository but it hasn't been finished because "it's not politically correct," John Boehner said in August, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. "We've invested tens of billions of dollars in a storage facility that's as safe as anything we're going to find."

[ I have a hard time believing: "as safe as anything we're going to find."  I translate this to be:"We don't have a solution for long term Nuclear Waste disposal"

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44455.html#ixzz1BLJVpXkh

Wiki Information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 17 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half life 24,000 years).^[20] Nuclear waste requires sophisticated treatment and management to successfully isolate it from interacting with the biosphere. This usually necessitates treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving storage, disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form.^[21] Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, though there has been limited progress toward long-term waste management solutions.^[22]

Radioactive Waste Disposal: An Environmental Perspective

[EPA 402-K-94-001]

This booklet describes the different categories of waste, discusses disposal practices for each type. and describes the way they are regulated.

On this page:

• Types of Waste

---

Introduction

Any activity that produces or uses radioactive materials generates radioactive waste. Mining, nuclear power generation, and various processes in industry, defense, medicine, and scientific research produce byproducts that include radioactive waste. Radioactive waste can be in gas, liquid or solid form, and its level of radioactivity can vary. The waste can remain radioactive for a few hours or several months or even hundreds of thousands of years. Because it can be so hazardous and can remain radioactive for so long, finding suitable disposal facilities for radioactive waste is difficult. Depending on the type of waste disposed, the disposal facility may need to contain radiation for a very long time. Proper disposal is essential to ensure protection of the health and safety of the public and quality of the environment including air, soil, and water supplies.

Radioactive waste disposal practices have changed substantially over the last twenty years. Evolving environmental protection considerations have provided the impetus to improve disposal technologies, and, in some cases, clean up facilities that are no longer in use. Designs for new disposal facilities and disposal methods must meet environmental protection and pollution prevention standards that are more strict than were foreseen at the beginning of the atomic age.

Disposal of radioactive waste is a complex issue, not only because of the nature of the waste, but also because of the complicated regulatory structure for dealing with radioactive waste. There are a variety of stakeholders affected, and there are a number of regulatory entities involved.

Federal government agencies involved in radioactive waste management include:

1. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
   
2. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
   
3. Department of Energy (DOE), and
   
4. Department of Transportation.
   
5. In addition, the states and affected Indian Tribes play a prominent role in protecting the public against the hazards of radioactive waste.

Types Of Radioactive Waste

There are six general categories of radioactive waste:

1. spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors
2. high-level waste from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel
3. transuranic waste mainly from defense programs
4. uranium mill tailings from the mining and milling of uranium ore
5. low-level waste
6. naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials.

Radioactive waste is categorized according to its origin and not necessarily according to its level of radioactivity. For example, some low-level waste has the same level of radioactivity as some high-level waste.

The following Clip was copied from the FERAF web site:

Dear Friend:

A proposal announced today by Governor Jay Nixon regarding nuclear power in Missouri represents a key opportunity to strengthen the consumer protections we depend on to keep Missouri energy rates fair and affordable.

The Fair Energy Rate Action Fund has worked hard over the past several years to support initiatives that keep the cost of energy fair and reasonable while providing adequate protections for all Missouri consumers.  FERAF couldn't have undertaken that effort without your support and participation. We are happy the Governor is starting the conversation about ways to generate sustainable, low-cost energy and look forward to working with him and members of the General Assembly on provisions important to consumers.

FERAF will encourage the Governor and Legislative leadership to include several pro-consumer provisions, including:

• Robust Office of Public Counsel (OPC). Over the years funding for consumer protection has been greatly reduced impairing the ability of OPC and PSC to conduct adequate reviews of rate case filings.  Legislation should include funding of the OPC that allows them to conduct thorough audits of rate cases filed with the Public Service Commission.
• Responsible Cap. Should the Legislature consider the utility's proposed legislation allowing them to recover costs of construction while in progress, they should include a reasonable and fair cap on rate increases to keep energy costs from spiraling out of control.   To ensure consumers money is well spent, each step of the construction process should be monitored and controlled.
• Rebate. Currently State law prevents costs associated with building a power plant from being charged to consumers before the plant is fully operational.  The proposal announced today would create an exception to this law. If ratepayers pay tens of millions of dollars in rate increases and a plant is never built or the permit is sold at a profit, Missouri ratepayers deserve to be refunded in full.

But what about you?  Will you help ensure these consumer protections are included with this year's energy legislation so we can keep Missouri energy rates fair and affordable?  Make a difference today by signing up at www.fairenergyrates.com and asking people you know to join FERAF.

Contact Your States Politicians by using the Direct Linking Service

TellMyPolitician

Let them know that you do not support Any Nuclear Plants in Missouri

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

NASA confirms what most of us already know-2010 warmest year...

Green: A Photo Finish for Warmest Year on Record
    Jan 13, 2011     New York Times    

JUSTIN GILLIS

4:35 p.m. | Updated NASA has just come out with its temperature numbers for 2010, and they match the NOAA analysis, showing a tie between 2010 and 2005 for hottest year on record. The NASA analysis can be found here.

It might come as something of a shock to hear this just now, with snow on the ground in 49 of the 50 states, but a new report shows that 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest year in the historical record.

Government scientists reported Wednesday morning that the global average surface temperature was 1.12 degrees Fahrenheit above the average for the entire 20th century. It was the 34th year running that global temperatures have been above the 20th-century average, and federal researchers said the figures showed that global warming was continuing unabated. According to the latest statistics, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since the year 2000.

Those numbers come from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the government agency that oversees weather forecasting and climate analysis. Two other groups, a NASA unit in New York and a research collaboration in Britain, compile global temperature records, and they have yet to report their findings for the full calendar year. (In the British data set, 1998 was the warmest year on record, rather than 2005 as a result of differences in the way the records are compiled.)

Perhaps not surprisingly to anyone who marveled at the weather events of 2010, the NOAA report shows the year to have been exceptional in many ways. Globally, it was the wettest year in the climatological record, perhaps no surprise to the Pakistanis, Australians, Tennesseans and Californians who lived through epic floods. They have yet to abate in the Australian state of Queensland.

Among the most impressive events in the annals of weather was a heat wave that baked Russia for two months in the summer, shattering temperature records over large parts of that country.

"The climate is continuing to show the influence of greenhouse gases," said David R. Easterling, a scientist at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

The United States was wetter and hotter than the average values for the 20th century, but over all, the year was not as exceptional for the United States as for the world as a whole. In the contiguous United States, it was only the 23rd hottest year on record, for instance.

But still, some remarkable events occurred at a regional scale, including snowstorms in February 2010 that shattered seasonal records in cities like Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia. That was followed by a summer heat wave that broke records along much of the East Coast.

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

Re: 2011 Tax Incentive New Changes for Home and Business

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Scott's Contracting <scottscontracting@gmail.com> wrote:

The Tax Incentives Assistance Project (TIAP), sponsored by a coalition of public interest nonprofit groups, government agencies, and other organizations in the energy efficiency field, is designed to give consumers and businesses information they need to make use of the federal income tax incentives for energy efficient products and technologies passed by Congress as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and subsequently amended several times.

Update as of 1/10/11 -

Congress passed, and the President signed, the tax legislation described below in mid-December. To find out more about the changes, see individual pages in the left sidebar. TIAP has also compiled a fact sheet with information about the relevant energy efficiency tax incentives for 2010 and 2011.

Update as of 12/16/10 – Congress About to Extend And Modify Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives for Appliances, New Homes and Retrofits to Existing Homes

Today, or shortly thereafter, Congress is likely to complete action on tax legislation that modifies and extends three energy efficiency tax incentives, as a part of a much larger tax package. These tax incentives will continue to help raise the market share of efficient appliances, HVAC and insulation products, and new homes.

The legislation extends the new homes tax credit to cover 2010 and 2011 – this $2000 credit goes to the home builders and is for homes that use no more than half the energy of homes that just meet the 2003 national model energy code. The credit expired at the end of 2009 but the new bill extends this to cover new homes that are built in 2010 and 2011.

The bill also extends and updates manufacturer appliance tax credits for 2011 – the credit, which goes to manufacturers directly, is extended for one year, and the following criteria now apply:

• Dishwashers –
• $25  - models using no more than 307 kilowatt hours/year and 5.0 gallons of water/cycle (this is the ENERGY STAR level effective July 1, 2011)
• $50 - models using no more than 295 kilowatt hours/year and 4.25 gallons of water/cycle
• $75 - models using no more than 280 kWh kilowatt hours/year and 4 gallons of water/cycle
• Clothes Washers –
• $175 – top-loading models that meet/exceed 2.2 MEF, and does not exceed 4.5 WCF
• $225 – top-loading models that meet/exceed 2.4 MEF, and does not exceed 4.2 WCF, or front-loading models that meet/exceed 2.8 MEF and do not exceed a 3.5 WCF
• Refrigerators –
• $150 – models that use 30% less energy relative to federal standard
• $200 – models that use 35% less energy relative to federal standard

The legislation extends the 25C heating and cooling equipment and building envelope tax incentives for another year but at reduced levels. The new bill extends eligibility to the end of 2011, but reduces the incentive to the original 10% up to $500.  Included are provisions which:

• limit window incentives to $200;
• limit oil and gas furnace and boiler incentives to $150, plus an additional $50 for efficient furnace fans;
• limit water heater and wood heating system incentives to $300;
• loosen the qualification for window incentives (ENERGY STAR windows now qualify);
• and tighten the specifications for oil furnaces and boilers and gas boilers to 95% efficiency, up from the 90% efficiency in current law.

Congress is likely to consider further extensions of these incentives into 2012 and beyond next year, and TIAP will provide updates as they become available.  The existing homes incentives are likely to receive a major overhaul, and there are also likely to be discussions about improving incentives for energy-efficiency investments in commercial buildings, incentives which under current law continue until the end of 2013.

While Congress extended most of the expiring federal energy efficiency tax incentives, they did not extend the incentive for hybrid trucks and buses.

IRS Forms

• Residential Energy Efficient Property: Form 5695
• New Homes: Form 8908
• Vehicle Incentives: Form 8910
• Commercial Solar Incentives: Form 3468 (Investment Credit)

  Note: The links above go to the IRS web site. TIAP makes every effort to keep these links up to date. IRS often does not publish new versions of forms until the beginning of the following tax year.

Additional Resources

TIAP Flyers for Residential and Commercial Incentives - Add your organization's logo and distribute at your next event to spread the word about energy efficiency incentives.

Some additional information on tax incentives can be found HERE!

Extension Service Home Energy Community of Practice Webinar - Presentation by Jen Amann, ACEEE (4/10/2009)

Overview of Federal Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives passed as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009
*Updated matrix of energy efficiency incentives

RESNET has completed a survey of rating providers regarding the number of homes that their raters certified for the federal tax credit (2007 only). 23,702 homes were certified by RESNET during 2007, which is triple the number of homes certified in 2006. For more information, click here.

NREL Energy Savings Modeling and Inspection Guidelines for Commercial Building Federal Tax Deductions (1.9 MB PDF)

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

Economics and Politics of Clean Coal

Illinois Power Coal Fired Power Plant News
Jan 9, 2011	St. Louis Post-Dispatch
-=-=-=-=-=-=- Green Blog Web Post Sponsor:   Platts has valuable commodity pricing and data to share with your online community. We’ve recently updated our site to include access to more information and reports. View Energy Prices Here or  Get Your Energy Report Here -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= The Illinois Senate's rejection of a bill to advance a next-generation coal plant just southeast of Springfield did more than potentially kill the $3.5 billion project. It highlighted the Catch-22 facing developers of this new breed of power plants: The steep price of building so-called clean coal plants deters investment -- but the cost won't come down until companies can prove the technology works, which requires actually building and operating plants. The legislation defeated at the Illinois capitol on Wednesday would have authorized the plant's owners to charge utilities above-market prices for electricity produced at the Taylorville Energy Center, which would generate enough electricity to power about 600,000 homes. But the impact of the vote could ripple even farther, potentially having a chilling effect on future clean coal proposals, including the federal government's revamped FutureGen project, a planned retrofitting of Ameren Corp.'s (NYSE:AEE) 70-year-old power plant in Meredosia, Ill. If such projects fail to move forward, that could also be a missed opportunity for Illinois coal miners, who would probably supply the fuel. "Long-term, (the effect) could be huge," said Phil Gonet, president of the Illinois Coal Association. Unlike the state's existing coal-fired plants, the Taylorville plant would not burn coal directly; instead, it would convert the black rock into a gas to more easily remove pollutants -- including much of the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming. Developers, led by Omaha, Neb.-based Tenaska Inc., had secured $3 billion in federal tax credits and loan guarantees from the administration of President Barack Obama. But they can't begin construction without assurance that they'll be able to recover their costs over the next 30 years. Those assurances were a nonstarter for a coalition of some of the state's largest parent companies and electricity customers who argued that the bill, while protecting residential customers, would have left large employers exposed to big rate increases. Parent company information from Corporate Affiliations can give you access to nearly 700,000 company profiles.   Philip O'Connor, a former Illinois Commerce Commission chairman who led a business coalition that lobbied fiercely against Taylorville, said the group didn't oppose clean coal projects in principal. "The problem was the economics of it," he said, over budget, under fire The economics are spelled out in a lengthy study filed with Illinois regulators last year. Tenaska was required to pay for the report under a measure approved by the Legislature in 2008. Among other findings, it revealed that electricity from the Taylorville plant would cost 21.3 cents a kilowatt-hour -- about three times what big electricity users currently pay, and far more expensive than new wind power (8 cents to 12 cents per kwh) or nuclear power (10 cents to 13 cents). And that report assumed the Taylorville project would be completed on budget. The business group, which includes the Illinois Chamber of Commerce and Illinois Manufacturers' Association, worried that they would bear the brunt of any cost overruns. The spectre of runaway costs has played out in Indiana, where Duke Energy Corp. (NYSE:DUK PRA) (NYSE:DUK) disclosed last spring that the cost of its Edwardsport clean coal plant had spiked by more than $500 million to $2.88 billion. That translated to an average 16 percent increase in electricity bills by 2013. Mounting concern over the impact on electric rates convinced Illinois Sen. Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon, to withdraw support for the Taylorville legislation. The biggest employers in his district said they faced increases of 3 percent to 7 percent. That included agricultural giant ADM, which estimated its annual electric bill would go up by $5 million. "It was made very clear, through all the research that I did, that costs to businesses in this state were going to outweigh the benefits of new jobs created," he said. Backers of the Taylorville project have rejected that argument as a red herring. They called the Senate's decision short-sighted and said it would only drive up electricity rates in the future, as aging, inefficient coal plants shut down. different plans, same problem Plans for the Taylorville and FutureGen projects, which would be about 90 miles apart, differ in key ways. They would use different technologies, and the Taylorville plant would be newly built whereas FutureGen calls for conversion of an existing coal plant. But, like Taylorville, Ameren has said FutureGen would require state legislation to guarantee that plant owners could recover their investments. An Ameren spokeswoman had no comment on the potential impact of the defeat of the Taylorville bill. "We are at the earliest stages of our project development and can't speculate on the impact this might have," spokeswoman Susan Gallagher said. The Illinois coal mining industry, meanwhile, is likely to suffer (OOTC:WLVTQ) little immediate effect from the Senate vote, said Gonet, of the state's coal association. But it could mean a lost opportunity in years to come, he said. Producers had hoped projects such as Taylorville and FutureGen would help boost Illinois coal output, which is about half of what it was 20 years ago, before restrictions on acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide emissions led utilities to switch to cleaner-burning western coal. (OOTC:WTNCF) (TSX:WTN') (TSX:WTN) "We have 55 million tons of coal that comes in each year from Wyoming to burn in Illinois power plants," Gonet said. "We'd like the opportunity to replace that with Illinois coal." Walking away? Tenaska executives -- who have spent five years and $40 million trying to get the Taylorville project off the ground -- have threatened to walk away unless the Senate reverses itself before noon Wednesday, when the lame-duck session ends. Company officials declined to comment after Wednesday's Senate vote. But other backers of the Taylorville project say a revote by the Senate seems unlikely. John Mead, director of the Coal Research Center at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, said national energy policy was needed to help developers get projects OK'd at the state level. "I think the country as a whole expects improvement in emissions performance, and whether it's through Congress or the EPA, we're going to see that expectation turned into requirements," Mead said. "Projects like Taylorville are going to help us meet those requirements." Hannah Hess of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report. Author: Jeffrey Tomich Jan. 9, 2011 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) -- Newstex ID: KRTB-0187-50770891

Platts has valuable commodity pricing and data to share with your online community. We’ve recently updated our site to include access to more information and reports.


View Energy Prices Here and Get Your Energy Report Here

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