Re: Missouri Solar Resources- Jan 2011 Update

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Scott's Contracting <scottscontracting@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Missouri Clean Energy Resource Links


Net Metering and the Easy Connection Act- Down Load PDF here:
http://adminmoseia.hypermart.net/pub2238.pdf
       This fact sheet answers frequently asked questions on the
current status of net metering

 

Missouri under the "Net Metering and Easy Connection Act" (Section
386.890; TAFP HCS SCS
SB 54. The full text of the portion of the bill related to Net
Metering and the Easy Connection Act
can be found at: http://www.senate.mo.gov/07info/pdf-bill/tat/SB54.pdf
on pages 36-41.)

Ameren UE: http://www.ameren.com/sites/aue/Rates/Documents/umbe1Mrtppo.pdf
More Ameren UE Resources: Ameren Missouri offers net metering to our
customers. Use the links below to learn more about the Missouri Net
Metering process.
http://www.ameren.com/sites/aue/Environment/Renewables/Pages/MissouriPropositionC.aspx

   * Net metering application process flow
   * Customer information letter
   * Ameren Missouri buyback tariff
   * Net metering two-step application process
   * "Sample" Net metering application supporting documentation

A Guide to Photovoltaic and Wind Generator Systems offered by Ameren UE:
http://www.ameren.com/sites/aue/source/Environment/Pages/ADC_EV_WindSystemsFactors.aspx


For more information on Ameren Missouri's net metering, contact
lcosgrove@ameren.com.


State of Missouri Resources
Title 10—DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Division 140—Division of Energy
Chapter 8—Certification of Renewable Energy and
Renewable Energy Standard Compliance Account

PROPOSED RULE
10 CSR 140-8.010 Certification of Renewable Energy and Renewable

Energy Standard Compliance Account

PURPOSE: This rule implements provisions of the Proposition C initiative
petition passed by Missouri voters on November 4, 2008, collectively
known as the "Renewable Energy Standard," found in section
393.1025, RSMo et seq.

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The secretary of state has determined that the
publication of the entire text of the material which is incorporated by
reference as a portion of this rule would be unduly cumbersome or
expensive. This material as incorporated by reference in this rule
shall be maintained by the agency at its headquarters and shall be
made available to the public for inspection and copying at no more
than the actual cost of reproduction. This note applies only to the reference
material. The entire text of the rule is printed here.

(1) Definitions. For the purpose of this rule—

(A) Commission—the Missouri Public Service Commission;

(B) Department—the Missouri Department of Natural Resources;

(C) Electric utility—a regulated Missouri electrical corporation as
defined in section 386.020, RSMo;

(D) Renewable energy credit or "REC"—a tradable certificate as
defined by section 393.1025(5), RSMo, that one (1) megawatt-hour
of electricity has been generated from eligible renewable energy
sources;

(E) Renewable energy generation facility or "facility"—the facility
where electrical energy was generated by an eligible renewable
energy resource; and

(F) Renewable energy resources—electrical energy as defined by
section 393.1025(5), RSMo, and which is eligible to be issued a
renewable energy credit (REC).

(2) Eligible Renewable Energy Resources.
(A) Eligible Renewable Energy Resources. The electricity must be
derived from one (1) of the following types of renewable energy
resources or technologies, as defined in section 393.1025(5), RSMo:

1. Wind;

2. Solar thermal sources or solar photovoltaic cells and panels;

3. Dedicated crops grown for energy production—herbaceous
and woody crops that are harvested specifically for energy production
in a sustainable manner;

4. Cellulosic agricultural residues—organic matter remaining
after the harvesting and processing of agricultural crops. They
include—

A. Field residues, which are organic materials left on agricultural
lands after the crops have been harvested, such as stalks,
stubble, leaves, and seed pods; and

B. Process residues, which are organic materials left after the
crops have been processed into a usable resource, such as husks,
seeds, and roots;

5. Plant residues—the residues of plants that would be converted
into energy, that otherwise would be waste material;

6. Clean and untreated wood—non-hazardous wood 1) that has
not been chemically treated with chemical preservatives such as creosote,
pentachlorophenol, or chromated copper arsenate; and 2) that
does not contain resins, glues, laminates, paints, preservatives, or
other treatments that would combust or off-gas, or mixed with any
other material that would burn, melt, or create other residue aside
from wood ash.

A. Eligible clean and untreated wood may include, but is not
necessarily limited to, the following sources:
(I) Forest-related resources, such as pre-commercial thinnings
waste, slash (tree tops, branches, bark, or other residue left on
the ground after logging or other forestry operations), brush, shrubs,
stumps, lumber ends, trimmings, yard waste, dead and downed forest
products, and small diameter forest thinnings (twelve inches (12")
in diameter or less);
(II) Non-chemically treated wood and paper manufacturing

Page 1022 Proposed Rules
July 15, 2010
Vol. 35, No. 14
waste, such as bark, trim slabs, scrap, shavings, sawdust, sander
dust, and pulverized scraps;
(III) Vegetation waste, such as landscape waste or right-ofway
trimmings;
(IV) Wood chips, pellets, or briquettes derived from nontoxic
and unadulterated wood wastes or woody energy crops;
(V) Municipal solid waste, construction and demolition
waste, urban wood waste, and other similar sources only if wood
wastes are segregated from other solid wastes or inorganic wastes;
and
(VI) Other miscellaneous waste, such as waste pellets, pallets,
crates, dunnage, scrap wood, tree debris left after a natural catastrophe,
and recycled paper fibers that are no longer suitable for
recycled paper production.

B. Ineligible clean and untreated wood may include, but is not
necessarily limited to, the following sources:
(I) Post-consumer wastepaper;
(II) Wood from old growth forests (one hundred fifty (150)
years old or older); and
(III) Unsegregated solid waste;

7. Methane from landfills or from wastewater treatment.
Wastewater treatment is defined as physical, chemical, biological,
and mechanical procedures applied to an industrial or municipal discharge
or to any other sources of contaminated water to remove,
reduce, or neutralize contaminants;

8. Hydropower, not including pumped storage, that does not
require a new diversion or impoundment of water and that each generator
has a nameplate rating of ten megawatts (10 MW) or less. If
an improvement to an existing hydropower facility does not require a
new diversion or impoundment of water and incrementally increases
the nameplate rating of each generator, up to ten megawatts (10 MW)
per generator of the incremental capacity, the improvement may qualify
as an eligible renewable energy resource;

9. Fuel cells using hydrogen produced by one (1) of the abovenamed
renewable energy resources. RECs based on generating electricity
in fuel cells from hydrogen derived from an eligible energy
resource are eligible for compliance purposes only to the extent that
the energy used to generate the hydrogen did not create RECs; or

10. Other sources of energy, not including nuclear, that may
become available after November 4, 2008, and are certified as eligible
renewable energy resources as provided in section (3) of this rule.

(3) Additions to Eligible Renewable Energy Resources.

(A) The department may certify new types of renewable energy
resources in addition to those listed as eligible in section
393.1025(5), RSMo, if the department determines the following to
be true:

1. The generation technology under review was not commercially
available in Missouri prior to November 4, 2008;

2. The generation technology is not based on nuclear fission or
nuclear fusion; and

3. There is no undue adverse air, water, or land use impacts,
including impacts associated with the gathering of generation feedstocks.

(B) The department will publish in the Missouri Register new
types of renewable resources it certifies as eligible pursuant to section
393.1025(5), RSMo.

(4) Certification of Renewable Energy Generation Facilities and
Environmental Impact.

(A) The department shall publish and maintain a list of certified
renewable energy generation facilities.

(B) Utilities that either own, or have contracted with, renewable
energy generation facilities included on the list shall be required to
provide a copy to the department of the completed Annual RES
Compliance Report filed with the commission, pursuant to section
393.1030, RSMo, to verify the validity of information gathered during
the certification review process. The copy will be provided to
the department concurrent with the filing of the Annual RES
Compliance Report with the commission.
(C) Certification Review Process.

1. Certification reviews will be conducted by the department for
renewable energy generation facilities upon application.

2. The certification review shall consider the eligibility of energy
sources used by the facility to generate electricity. A determination
will be made by the department as to whether the generation has
caused undue adverse air, water, or land use impacts, including
impacts associated with the gathering of generation feedstocks.

3. The certification review process may be initiated by an electric
utility or by a facility by submitting an application for certification
to the department. The department shall consider all such applications
for certification and shall conduct a certification review
process in response to all properly completed petitions. An application
for certification must include:

A. A detailed technical description of energy sources, including
fuel type, technology, and expected operating specifications, used
by the facility to generate electricity and their conformity with the
eligible renewable energy resources listed in section (2) and additional
renewable energy resources certified by the department pursuant
to section (3);

B. If any amount of fossil fuel is used in the generation
process, a description of agreements or systems in place that assure
sufficient data will be available to determine the portion of electrical
output attributable to only the renewable energy resource;

C. An assessment of the facility's air, water, or land use
impacts, including impacts associated with the gathering of generation
feedstocks. An assessment shall include, but is not limited to,
demonstrating compliance with permits and agricultural and forestry
best management practices, such as the "Missouri Woody Biomass
Harvesting – Best Management Practices Manual" guidelines published
by the Missouri Department of Conservation, found online at:
http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/18043.pdf, if applicable, and
verification of compliance from a Missouri professional forester, if
applicable. This assessment shall also include information concerning
any applications for approvals or permits, or reviews or investigations
by governmental entities with regard to environmental
impacts;

D. The application for certification shall also state the following:
(I) That the electric utility or facility will obtain and/or
maintain all applicable environmental permits required by the department;
(II) That the facility is and will remain in substantial compliance
with all federal and state air, water, and land environmental
laws, regulations, and rules, and that the applicant will report to the
department any instance in which the applicant or any member of its
board of directors or principals is determined by any administrative
agency or any court in connection with any judicial proceeding to be
in noncompliance with any federal or state air, water, and land environmental
laws, regulations, and rules, such report to be submitted
within ten (10) working days following such determination;
(III) That the electric utility applicant will timely file its
Annual RES Compliance Report with the commission pursuant to
section 393.1030.2(3), RSMo;
(IV) That the utility will submit additional information that
the department may require for its review of the facility's energy
sources and environmental impact with appropriate provision for
confidentiality of sensitive information; i.e., protection of energy
information pursuant to section 640.155, RSMo;
(V) That contracts for the acquisition of renewable energy
resources shall provide for release of information to the department
with appropriate provision for confidential treatment of any sensitive
information, such as pursuant to section 641.155, RSMo; and
(VI) To grant or obtain for the department access to facility
sites and records for the purpose of verifying statements made in
the petition; and

E. A statement signed by a designated official of the electric
utility or renewable energy generation facility attesting that "I have

Page 1023
July 15, 2010
Vol. 35, No. 14 Missouri Register
personally examined the information submitted herein by [name of
electric utility or renewable energy generation facility], I attest that
this information is accurate and complete and that I am authorized to
make this statement on behalf of [name of utility or facility]."

4. On completion of its review, the department shall certify the
facility if all requirements herein have been met. The department
may deny certifying the facility if those requirements are not met or
for reasons stated in subparagraph (4)(C)4.A. The department may
revoke certification as provided in subparagraph (4)(C)4.B.

A. The department may deny certification if the application
is deficient or if the department finds—
(I) That the energy sources and technologies used to generate
electricity are not eligible renewable energy resources as set
forth in section (2) or additional renewable energy resources certified
by the department pursuant to section (3); or
(II) That the facility has significant and unresolved violations
of existing federal or state air, water, or land environmental regulations;
or
(III) That the facility has not adhered to forestry or agricultural
best management practices consequently resulting in undue
adverse air, water, or land use impacts, and that agreement cannot be
reached on actions that the utility or generation facility will undertake
that are sufficient to offset or mitigate the adverse impacts.

B. Any of the following actions may result in revocation of
certification as an eligible renewable energy generation facility:
(I) The electric utility's failure to file with the department
a copy of its Annual RES Compliance Report to the commission;
(II) Falsification of or failure to disclose any required
information in the application for certification;
(III) Failure to remain in substantial compliance with all
federal and state laws, regulations, and rules for the protection of the
environment;
(IV) A significant increase in adverse environmental
impacts resulting from electric generation at the renewable energy
generation facility;
(V) Failure to disclose information on a confidential basis
that is essential for verifying the facility's compliance with requirements
for certification as an eligible renewable generation facility;
(VI) Re-marketing or reselling of REC(s) after it has been
sold to an electric utility; or
(VII) Failure to obtain and/or maintain all applicable environmental
permits required by the department.

5. A renewable energy generation facility which is denied certification
or whose certification is revoked by the department shall
not be eligible for use to meet the Renewable Energy Standard
requirements in section 393.1030, RSMo, until such time as the
facility has been certified or recertified by the department.

6. The public may file a complaint asking the department to
conduct a revocation review of a certified renewable energy generation
facility. The complaint must list alleged violations by the facility,
the facility's name, date of violations, types of violation(s), and
the address of the facility.

(5) Renewable Energy Standard Compliance Account.

(A) The department shall establish a Renewable Energy Standard
Compliance Account (compliance account) whose funds shall be disposed
as set forth in this section.

(B) Funds remitted to the department as a result of utilities' failure
to comply with the Renewable Energy Standard as provided in
subsection 393.1030.2.(2), RSMo, shall be deposited into the compliance
account and shall be used to purchase a sufficient number of
renewable energy credits to offset the deficit in RECs. Funds
deposited in the compliance account in excess of the funds required
for the purchase of RECs to offset the deficit in RECs shall be used
by the department solely for administration of renewable energy and
energy efficiency projects.

(C) Beginning in 2012, the department shall prepare an annual
report on the transfer and disposition of funds in the compliance
account. The report shall include a listing of RECs purchased using
compliance account funds and the electric utilities on whose behalf
the RECs were purchased using compliance account funds. The
report shall be completed by June 30 and shall cover activities of the
preceding calendar year. If any pertinent information is considered
confidential, a version of the report disclosing the confidential information
shall be submitted to the commission and a report without the
confidential information shall be made available to the public.

AUTHORITY: section 393.1030, RSMo Supp. 2009. Original rule
filed June 14, 2010.

PUBLIC COST: This proposed rule is estimated to cost state agencies
or political subdivisions fifty-seven thousand four hundred ninety-
nine dollars ($57,499) in the aggregate.
PRIVATE COST: This proposed rule is estimated to cost private entities
$1,410,000 in the aggregate.

NOTICE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Anyone may file a statement in
support of or in opposition to this proposed rule with the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Energy, PO Box 176,
Jefferson City, MO 65102. To be considered, comments must be
received within thirty (30) days after publication of this notice in the
Missouri Register. No public hearing is (continue reading:
http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/moreg/previous/2010/v35n14/v35n14a.pdf)


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

Missouri Energy Initiative-Jan 2011

Missouri Energy Initiative is new think tank on energy
Jan 21, 2011 St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Jeffrey Tomich

Jan. 21, 2011 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex)
-- Two years ago, environmental and consumer lobbyists clashed with
utility advocates over state legislation that would have furthered
Ameren Missouri's plans to develop a second nuclear plant in Callaway
County.

The bill ultimately died. And the St. Louis utility suspended efforts
to get a permit for a second nuclear reactor. But the months of
television ads, harsh rhetoric and political jockeying that
characterized the debate did make a mark, providing the impetus for
the Missouri Energy Initiative, a new statewide think tank for energy
issues.

Roger Walker -- a part-time attorney for Clayton's Armstrong Teasdale
and executive director of Regform, a statewide business association
focused on environmental policy -- became frustrated with the tenor of
the nuclear debate. The squabbling "became a catalyst for wanting to
have an honest debate on energy issues," he said.

The group emerges as Missouri faces thorny questions regarding its
energy future. The Legislature will again debate legislation that
would further development of a second Callaway nuclear plant. The
state will also grapple with how to increase energy efficient and
renewable energy, while reducing dependence on fossil fuels and
maintaining relatively low electricity rates, a competitive advantage
for businesses.

Walker and co-founder Gary Stacy, a University of Missouri plant
sciences professor, have worked deliberately to sketch out MEI's
goals, recruit board members and raise funds. (Stacy had been
organizing a separate organization focused on Missouri energy research
and education when he and Walker decided to combine their efforts.)

"We've been moving slowly on purpose," Walker said. "These issues are
going to be here for a long time."

The group's 14 current board members include former Gov. Bob Holden;
Washington University Chancellor Mark S. Wrighton; Ron Wood, the
retired chief executive of Kansas City-based energy consultancy Black
and Veatch; former Congressman Kenny Hulshof; and Stanley R. Bull of
the Midwest Research Institute.

Another board member, James R. Fischer of Columbia, Mo., a former
university researcher, professor and dean who now runs an energy
consulting firm, sees MEI as an opportunity to attract jobs and
investment to Missouri by playing a part in helping shape the state's
energy future.

"People won't invest in a state unless they understand the energy
scenario," he said.

The group plans to issue its first white paper later this spring, an
outgrowth of a Nov. 2 roundtable discussion that focused on a wide
range of topics. The invitation-only gathering included
representatives from energy producers and users, academia, government
and labor, consumer and environmental groups.

Walker, MEI's current chairman, intends the group to be visible on key
issues. The group's primary mission will be fact finding, educating
the public, promoting dialogue and searching for ways to leverage
energy research at Missouri institutions to benefit the state, he
said.

But don't look for the organization to take a stand on controversial
issues or lobby. MEI will be more than nonpartisan; it will be
apolitical.

"We're not going to walk the halls" of the Capitol, Walker said. "We
don't want to be seen as a special interest group for anyone."

Most operating funds will come from dues, and the group will probably
seek out state and federal grants and perhaps funding from private
foundations. So far, it has cash and financial commitments totaling
$150,000 -- enough to hire a full-time executive director for the
group's office in Jefferson City, Walker said.

MEI will interact with the public by issuing white papers, host
meetings and discuss key issues and be a sounding board for state
leaders on energy issues, he said. Eventually, he hopes that MEI is
known well enough that state leaders will seek out its advice.

The group won't stake out positions on controversial issues, but it
also won't hesitate to promote frank discussion and call out
misinformation -- no matter the source, Walker said.

"Someone's got to shave off the extreme positions and establish what's
real and what's factual."

Newstex ID: KRTB-0187-100023969

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

Green and Eco Flooring Sale- 63109 Area

Eco Friendly Building Products for the St Louis Area.  Guest Post provided by Scotty, St Louis Renewable Energy

 Green Flooring Sale
Bamboo Floor
Fast Growing
Economical
Design Choices
Design Colors

 

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

US vs Banks- Foreclosures are Lower

Fallout of foreclosure fiasco spreads beyond "judicial states"--Barclays

 

Jon Prior of Housing Wire reports that the consequences of missteps among mortgage servicers who were pressing failed home loans through foreclosure have proven contagious beyond the "judicial" states considered to be the most stern on documentation through the foreclosure process. Prior reports, "The largest decline came in New York, where the process nearly halted completely and the rate at which homes moved from foreclosure to REO dropped by 91%. New Jersey was the next closest with a 75% drop. The shortest decrease came in California, where the rate fell 35%. The rate in most other states declined by at least 50%." For some--banks, namely--time is the enemy. For others--borrowers desperate for options--time is their friend. For now, time is on the side of borrowers.
Read more...

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

Re: From Solar Nation: please call these Missouri legislators and keep our renewable electrcity standard strong for Missouri!

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Solar Nation <chris@solar-nation.org> wrote:

Keep Renewable Energy in Missouri Take Action! Our Renewable Electricity Standard is at risk A few months ago, we told you about the attempt by rules committees at the Missouri State House to dilute our renewable electricity standard (RES).  The RES was passed on a ballot initiative in 2008, and it requires big utilities to generate 15% of their power output from renewable sources by 2021.  Recently filed bills (SCR1 and HCR5) would allow utilities to comply with the RES by purchasing renewable energy from places as far away as California and Canada.  Should these bills pass, the economic benefits and green jobs that the RES would bring to our state could be completely dissipated, negating some of the greatest benefits of the RES for Missouri. The bills will be heard in the Senate Rules Committee and the House General Laws Committee within twenty-four hours.  Can you call the heads of the two committees by noon on Tuesday January 18th and entreat them to vote NO on SCR1 (Senate) and HCR5 (House)? Jobs, economic gain and a cleaner environment for Missouri hang in the balance.  Please take a few minutes and make the calls.  Thanks for your help!

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

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