-- Scotts Contracting - StLouis Renewable Energy

Search This Blog

3.31.2011

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


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

3.30.2011

Ameren UEs Greed-Missouri-Nuclear Reactor-

Here is some of the latest news on Energy (Electricity) Issues affecting the St Louis Area, Ameren UEs Nuclear Reactor Agenda is just plain GREEDY and will cost us the rate payers now and in the future.


  • Amerens goal is to charge the people of the St Louis Area, the ratepayers, millions of dollars up front for an unnecessary, risky, and expensive Nuclear Power Reactor Plant rather than investing in the cheapest energy resource available, energy efficiency
  • The proposed legislation would chip away at a 1976 ballot initiative supported 2-to-1 by Missouri voters. This law protects Missourians from investor-owned utilities charging ratepayers up-front for the construction of a power plant until it is producing electricity.
    • 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                                                                                                                                                                          
  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

Missouri-Lobby Day 2011 Registration



If you care about Missouri's environment and want to make a difference, we need your help! Join MVC, the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Missouri Sierra Club and citizens from across Missouri as we convene at the state Capitol for Conservation Lobby Day on Tuesday, March 29, 2011.

9am - 4pm
The day begins at the Governor's Office Building
200 Madison St. - Room 450
Jefferson City, MO 65101


This is an important opportunity to share your passion for the environment with state legislators, and have a big impact on environmental policies affecting Missouri.

Each year, Missourians gather at the capitol to make their conservation values known - from environmentalists, scientists, students and business owners to hunters, anglers and farmers. On Lobby Day, advocate for one of these important issues:
  • Defending Missouri Renewable Energy: Defending Missouri's 2008 voter-enacted Renewable Electricity Standard.
  • Protecting Water Quality: Ensuring adequate monitoring and enforcement to protect Missouri's streams and lakes.
  • Upgrading State Parks: Aquiring funding for vitally-needed capital improvements to maintain Missouri's excellent parks.
  • Advancing Energy Efficiency and Green Building: Making buildings more energy efficient through green building standards.
Become part of the political process, and add your voice to others in Missouri's environmental community. By speaking out with a unified voice for environmental values, we can help shape the future of our state.  

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Here is some of the latest news on Energy (Electricity) Issues affecting our Area


  • Ameren's goal is to charge the people of the St Louis Area, the ratepayers, millions of dollars up front for an unnecessary, risky, and expensive power plant rather than investing in the cheapest energy resource available, energy efficiency
  • The proposed legislation would chip away at a 1976 ballot initiative supported 2-to-1 by Missouri voters. This law protects Missourians from investor-owned utilities charging ratepayers up-front for the construction of a power plant until it is producing electricity.
    • 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.  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."


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


New 2011 CSP Today World Map



The 2011 version of the CSP Today World Map has been released, displaying all concentrated solar thermal projects in USA and worldwide whether under planning or construction or operational.

This unique document gives you a bird´s eye view of what is happening in the US in the concentrated solar thermal power industry.

You can download the map from here:

http://rencd-media.com/portal/wts/cemcDAaA-RebaDsF2fs90-aAw-Aeyd

I hope that you find it useful!  Let me know your thoughts

Thanks

Belén

Belén Gallego
CSP Today
belen@csptoday.com

US Phone 201 204 1914
UK Phone +44 207 3757555

__________________________________________________________



You may also contact us at:
RenewableEnergyWorld.com
9 Vose Farm Road
Peterborough, NH 03458 - USA



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


Efficiency First






2010 MCE E-Alert Header
Donate Now

Follow us on:
Find us on Facebook  Follow us on Twitter
Upcoming Events

 

3/29 - Conservation Lobby Day

Earth Share of Missouri

Better Business Bureau Seal

Japanese Disaster is Yet Another Reason
Why Ameren Must Pursue Efficiency First

 

Our sympathy goes out those who lost loved ones in last week's devastating earthquake and tsunami. As the Japanese reel from this disaster, they are now also under high alert for a nuclear reactor meltdown and radiation exposure.  

 

While members of the U.S. Congress are discussing a possible moratorium on new nuclear reactors until safety issues are addressed, the 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 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.

In short, Ameren admits it cannot find investors to fund the nuclear plant because it is too risky and expensive.   

 

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.    

 

History tells us only 50% of proposed nuclear reactors are completed and produce electricity in the U.S. These are not good odds for ratepayers who will have to pay for a new reactor whether or not it actually comes online.

 

The most frustrating thing about this proposition is that 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."  

 

So at the end of the day, Ameren's own numbers show that an aggressive energy efficiency plan will keep electric bills lower than other energy options. But, the company's sole concern is shareholder profits.

 

Kidwell's concern about loss revenue has been addressed through new rules developed by the Public Service Commission this year. Utilities are now reimbursed for costs associated with implementing efficiency programs and for revenue they lose when the efficiency programs cause customers to buy less power.  

 

Ameren's goal is to charge you, the ratepayer, millions of dollars up front for an unnecessary, risky, and expensive power plant rather than investing in the cheapest energy resource available, energy efficiency.    

 

Now is the time to get involved!  Attend Conservation Lobby Day on Tuesday, March 29 and speak to state legislators about this issue and other critical environmental policies.  

 

Ed Smith
Missouri Coalition for the Environment  

No-CWIP Coordinator 



Missouri Coalition for the Environment | 6267 Delmar Blvd., Ste. 2E | St. Louis | MO | 63130



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




Invitation: MCE Annual Meeting-Friendraiser-Schlafly Tap Room

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Missouri Coalition for the Environment <moenviron@moenviron.org> wrote:
2010 MCE E-Alert Header
Donate Now

Follow us on:
Find us on Facebook  Follow us on Twitter
Upcoming Events

Earth Share of Missouri

Better Business Bureau Seal

2011 Annual Meeting

Biomass? Coal? Clarifying "Clean" in the Energy Debate
Sunday, April 10 at 3:30 PM
Schlafly Tap Room
2100 Locust St., St. Louis, MO

As Missouri confronts its dependence on coal and seeks renewable alternatives, "biomass" is emerging as part of the mix. Before Missouri has invested sufficiently in wind, solar, hydro and energy efficiency, our state is facing proposals for 32-40 megawatt power plants fueled by forest-based biomass. How clean are these plants?

Please join us for an examination of Missouri's energy priorities as we compare our energy options.
  • What are the air pollution impacts from biomass v. coal?
  • Is forest biomass sustainable?
  • What is clean, renewable biomass?
  • How can we secure our coal-free energy future?
Annual Meeting will also include Board of Directors elections, door prizes and updates on MCE's program work.

*Free* Members and non-members are welcome and encouraged to attend. Please RSVP online if you plan on attending.

Eating Lightly Cookbook

Eating Lightly
for our planet
for our health
for robust pleasure

Eating Lightly cookbook coverEating Lightly is a collection of over 400 vegetarian and vegan recipes from friends of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, ranging from the family of the Missouri Botanical Garden's Pat and Peter Raven to some of Missouri's most creative professional chefs to your next-door neighbor. Not only have contributors shared favorite recipes but, often, the stories behind them. This is a cookbook with personality! Eight Missouri artists have contributed work to make Eating Lightly a visual feast as well.

In addition to offering a wide range of vegetarian and vegan appetizers, soups, salads, breads, side dishes, entrees, and desserts, this collection notes which of its recipes are gluten-free.

Copies can be purchased for only $20 apiece (plus $3 shipping) online and by cash or check only with a visit to any of the following St. Louis metro locations:

Downtown St. Louis -- Left Bank Books at 321 N. 10th
South City -- Local Harvest Grocery at 3108 Morganford
Home Eco at 4611 Macklind
Urban Eats Café & Bakery at 3301 Meramec St.
Sweet Art at 2203 S. 39th St.
CWE - Left Bank Books at 399 N. Euclid
University City Loop - Plowsharing Crafts at 6271 Delmar
Kirkwood - Cornucopia at 107 N. Kirkwood Rd.
Maplewood - Stone Spiral Coffee & Curios at 2500 Sutton

All proceeds from the sale of Eating Lightly will benefit the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, a member-supported and member-directed organization that has been strengthening environmental protections, holding government and corporations accountable, defending the environment in court, and mobilizing citizens to action for over forty years.
Missouri Coalition for the Environment | 6267 Delmar Blvd., Ste. 2E | St. Louis | MO | 63130



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

UN report: Cities ignore climate change at their peril

  • In industrialised nations, urban living demands more water, natural resources and energy
  • Urban areas are set to become the battleground in the global effort to curb climate change, the UN has warned

29 March 2011 By Mark Kinver Science and environment reporter, BBC News
 In industrialised nations, urban living demands more water, natural resources and energy

Urban areas are set to become the battleground in the global effort to curb climate change, the UN has warned.

The assessment by UN-Habitat said that the world's cities were responsible for about 70% of emissions, yet only occupied 2% of the planet's land cover.

While cities were energy intensive, the study also said that effective urban planning could deliver huge savings.

The authors warned of a "deadly collision between climate change and urbanisation" if no action was taken.

The Global Report on Human Settlements 2011, Cities and Climate Change: Policy Directions, said its goal was to improve knowledge of how cities contribute to climate change, and what adaptation measures are available.

Worrying trend

Joan Clos, executive director of UN-Habitat, said the global urbanisation trend was worrying as far as looking to curb emissions were concerned.

"We are seeing how urbanisation is growing - we have passed the threshold of 50% (of the world's population living in urban areas)," he told BBC News.

"There are no signs that we are going to diminish this path of growth, and we know that with urbanisation, energy consumption is higher.

According to UN data, an estimated 59% of the world's population will be living in urban areas by 2030.

Every year, the number of people who live in cities and town grows by 67 million each year - 91% of this figure is being added to urban populations in developing countries.

The main reasons why urban areas were energy intensive, the UN report observed, was a result of increased transport use, heating and cooling homes and offices, as well as economic activity to generate income.

The report added that as well as cities' contribution to climate change, towns and cities around the globe were also vulnerable to the potential consequences, such as:

Increase in the frequency of warm spells/heat waves over most land areas
  • Greater number of heavy downpours
  • Growing number of areas affected by drought
  • Increase in the incidence of extremely high sea levels in some parts of the world

Soweto, Southern Africa is considered to be one of the areas at most risk from the impacts of climate change

The authors also said that as well as the physical risks posed by future climate change, some urban areas would face difficulties providing basic services.

"These changes will affect water supply, physical infrastructure, transport, ecosystem goods and services, energy provision and industrial production," they wrote.

"Local economies will be disrupted and populations will be stripped of their assets and livelihoods."

A recent assessment highlighted a number of regions where urban areas were at risk from climate-related hazards, such as droughts, landslides, cyclones and flooding.

These included sub-Saharan Africa, South and South East Asia, southern Europe, the east coast of South America and the west coast of the US.

Time to act

Dr Clos told BBC News that while climate change was a problem that affected the entire world, individual towns and cities could play a vital role in the global effort to curb emissions.

"The atmosphere is a common good, which we all depend upon - every emission is an addition to the problem," he explained.

But, he added: "Consumption is carried out at an individual level; energy consumption is also an individual choice.

"This is why local governments and communities can a big role, even when their national governments do not accept or acknowledge the challenges."

The report called on local urban planners to develop a vision for future development that considered climate change's impact on the local area.

It said that it was necessary to include mitigation measures (reducing energy demand and emissions) as well as adaptation plans, such as improving flood defences.

In order to achieve the most effective strategy, it was necessary for urban planners to seek the views of the local community, including businesses and residents.

However, the UN-Habitat authors said international and national policies also had a role to play in supporting urban areas.

These included financial support, reducing bureaucracy and improving awareness and knowledge of climate change and its possible impacts.

Dr Clos was launching the report on Monday evening at an event in central London, hosted by the London School of Economics.

Article reposted from- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12881779

Connect with Scotts Contracting

FB FB Twitter LinkedIn Blog Blog Blog Blog Pinterest