- There are numerous risks of huge magnitude from nuclear power plants. Nuclear power companies are totally dependent on government bailout if anything goes wrong, which these days, seems to be normal. Is this how you want your money spent?- Editor
 

Nuclear will not get atom of help from this Government
Mr. Huhne, the new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change for U.K.’s new coalition government, said, “My scepticism is based on whether or not (the nuclear industry) can make it work without public subsidy. One of the things the coalition agreed with some passion in the current circumstances of fiscal restraint was that there will be no public subsidy for nuclear power.” Even support in the event of a disaster was out of the question, he said. “That would count as a subsidy absolutely. There will be no public bailouts.  I have explained my position to the industry and said public subsidies include contingent liabilities.”

Mr. Huhne, the new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change for U.K.’s new coalition government, said, “My scepticism is based on whether or not (the nuclear industry) can make it work without public subsidy. One of the things the coalition agreed with some passion in the current circumstances of fiscal restraint was that .”   I have explained my position to the industry and said .”This is an important hardening of the position held by the Labour administration and could make it much harder for companies to finance the plants. “It is a challenge for them, as no one has yet built a nuclear power station without public subsidy for some time.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7127202.ece

- Over the last month, Climate Today has received, as we know many of you have, dozens and dozens of pleas to contact our government reps to advocate for this bill. There is such a difference between the results of bending to the vested interests that got us in this mess in the first place, and doing what is really needed to follow the laws of physics while protecting the health of people and our ecosystems. Some say something is better than nothing. Others, like James Hansen, request we rethink this. With over 1,000 pages, we offer the URL for the summary. - Editor
 

The American Power Act
The American Power Act will transform our economy, set us on the path toward energy independence and improve the quality of the air we breathe. It will create millions of good jobs that cannot be shipped abroad and it will launch America into a position of leadership in the global clean energy economy. Our approach sets an achievable national pollution reduction target and refunds the money raised right back to American consumers and American businesses. This is not a plan that enriches Wall Street speculators. And this is certainly not a plan to grow the government. It is a plan that creates jobs and sets us on a course toward energy independence and economic resurgence.
http://kerry.senate.gov/americanpoweract/intro.cfm
From the Summary:
- Industrial sources will not enter the program until 2016.
- We have included a broad package of financial incentives to increase nuclear power generation.
- States will not be permitted to operate cap-and-trade programs for greenhouse gases.
- We empower the U.S. to lead the world in the deployment of clean coal technologies through annual incentives of $2 billion per year for researching and developing effective carbon capture and sequestration methods and devices.
- Mindful of the accident in the Gulf, we institute important new protections for coastal states by allowing them to opt-out of drilling up to 75 miles from their shores. In addition, directly impacted states can veto drilling plans if they stand to suffer significant adverse impacts in the event of an accident.
For a short summary of the bill- http://kerry.senate.gov/americanpoweract/pdf/APAShortSummary.pdf
For some corporate views- are these the companies that you trust to drive us to a safe future? :
Here are yesterday’s various statements from chemical industry groups and companies on their views about the climate bill:
Dow Chemical - thumbs up.
Shell Oil - thumbs up. Approves inclusion of all energy sources including nuclear, coal, oil, gas, wind…
Dow Corning - thumbs up.
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) - thumbs down. Disapproves carbon reduction targets and timetables.
American Materials Manufacturing Alliance (composed of chemical, forest & paper, iron & steel, fertilizer and cement industry groups) - slightly thumbs down.
America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) - thumbs up. Appreciates inclusion of incentive for natural gas.
http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/6560

- Our spines should bristle when people list nuclear power under the rubric “clean energy.” There is absolutely nothing clean about nuclear material! With Europeans using half the power we use, we need to get serious about voluntary simplicity and energy efficiency which will make renewables affordable, quick, and a complete answer, without off-shore drilling releasing volcanoes of evil, and without nuclear power plants tempting sick, angry people. - Editor
Al Qaeda’s Nuclear Plant
All eyes are on Faisal Shahzad, the man charged with the attempted bombing in Times Square on Saturday. But perhaps we ought to be concerned more with Sharif Mobley- a New Jersey native who moved to Yemen to allegedly join Al Qaeda, a maintenance worker at five nuclear power plants along the East Coast. Since his arrest by Yemeni security forces in March, American law enforcement officials have taken pains to emphasize that Mr. Mobley’s low security clearance makes it unlikely that he passed crucial details about American nuclear-plant security to Al Qaeda. But it doesn’t take top-level clearance to know how to set off a nuclear meltdown. All it takes is information on perimeter security- information Mr. Mobley possesses about every plant where he worked.
A nuclear power plant is very different from a coal or gas-burning plant. If something goes wrong at such a plant, boilers can be quickly shut down, averting disaster. But there’s no way to quickly shut off a reactor: the heat that builds up inside it is so intense that even if something goes wrong, cooling water must continue to circulate through its systems for days before it is safe.
Even low-level employees at a nuclear plant would have the information necessary to pull off an attack damaging a reactor’s cooling system, like the number of guards, their weapons and procedures at entry gates- even someone as low-level as Sharif Mobley. For now, we have no choice but to assume that Mr. Mobley did in fact pass on details about plant security, and we need to take immediate steps to head off any possible terrorist attack.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/opinion/06Faddis.html?ref=opinion

- Solutions are needed, but surely building in a disaster makes no sense. Nuclear power plants on coasts should now be being dismantled, not being built. - Editor

Britain’s Mr. Ed Miliband is a convert to the nuclear cause, arguing that the price of not building a new generation of plants, in the form of higher carbon emissions, trumps the environmental and financial cost of going ahead. Yesterday he issued the new Infrastructure Planning Commission with its orders. There will be no drawn-out public inquiry into each new nuclear site, windfarm or power line. The IPC will review specific applications, and consult, but its remit will not allow it to question whether such things should be built, only where. It is hard to dispute Mr. Miliband’s logic that, if Britain is to meet its carbon targets, extra nuclear power will be required – though some will ask why, ruling out Dungeness because of the risk of floods, he is happy to build at Sizewell, on an eroded coastline. Yesterday’s statements also leave the issues of funding and waste management unresolved. Fast-track planning is only the start.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/10/ed-miliband-nuclear-energy-policy

 
What happens to this nuclear plant at Sizewell when the sea level rises?

- So let’s be rational and recognize and prepare for rising seas! - Editor
Greenland Ice Cap Melting Faster Than Ever
Satellite observations and a state-of-the art regional atmospheric model have independently confirmed that the Greenland ice sheet is loosing mass at an accelerating rate, reports a new study in Science.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091112141311.htm

- Join with the people who believe that we do indeed have answers- we just need to get going! - Editor

Can the whole planet really get 100 percent of its energy from renewables in just two decades?  Yes, according to new research, and for cheaper than coal. But how exactly? The answer lies in scaling up three categories of existing clean energy technologies – wind, solar and water – and global political will. The paper, “A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables,” was published in the November issue of Scientific American. The technologies needed for 100 percent clean power are already working (or close to working) today. Two, the cost of generating and transmitting these renewables would be less than the projected cost per kilowatt-hour for fossil-fuel and nuclear power. And three, a massive shift from conventional to clean power would lead to a 30 percent decrease in global power demand.
Here’s what governments must do:
• Eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, such as tax benefits for their exploration and extraction.
• Enact feed-in tariff (FIT) programs that cover the difference between generation costs and electricity prices.
• Tax fossil fuels or their use to reflect environmental damages.
• End “misguided promotion of alternatives” that are less desirable than wind, solar and water, such as farm and production subsidies for biofuels.
• Invest in long-distance, robust transmission systems that can carry large quantities of clean power from remote regions to consumption centers.
• Build smart grid systems that reduce consumer demand during peak usage periods.
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091026/100-renewables-2030-less-fossil-power-case-made
For the article- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030  This issue also has an article on vertical farming and another on the future of cars. A good issue to buy! 

- Revered international efficiency guru Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) came to Santa Fe and gave numerous inspirational speeches. He said that nuclear is so expensive that the combination of efficiency and renewables is 20-40 times faster and cheaper for energy production and emissions cuts.  Buying slow expensive methods like nuclear thus makes the problem worse. Looks like this reality check certainly backs up Amory’s expensive statement. Any proposals for nuclear must both require the companies to assume the full risk of cost overruns and the cost of financing.  - Editor

Nuclear Reactor Construction Periods — Estimated vs. Actual
 

Boiling The Frog Slowly- Nuclear Optimism Hides True Costs Till It’s Too Late

There is a well-known story about how to boil a frog.  If you try to throw a frog into a pot already boiling, he’ll jump out. However, put a frog into a pot and slowly raise the temperature — and you get frog legs for dinner. The nuclear power industry seems to be pursuing this strategy, slowly releasing ever higher cost estimates for new nuclear power plants. If the public does not realize the true costs of a new nuclear plant, the industry can obtain political support for the Federal loan guarantees it needs.  After the taxpayers are on the hook and a nuclear project is already underway, the full costs will become clear.  
At that point, however, it may be too late for taxpayers and utility ratepayers to jump out. Last week the Ontario government put plans to build 2 new next-generation reactors on hold, after it received bids “more than three times higher than what the Province expected to pay”.   The only “compliant” bid — one where the supplier would be sufficiently at risk if costs exceeded the amount quoted - was reportedly a $26 billion quote from Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd, equal to roughly $10,800 per kW. Rather than blindly accepting these estimates, however, Ontario authorities were wise enough to require nuclear vendors to submit bids accepting the risk of cost overruns.  Once the suppliers were on the hook, rather than ratepayers and taxpayers, the true costs of new nuclear power became apparent. It would be highly unusual for a nuclear vendor to bear the cost of financing for a project, so the total cost of these plants is likely to climb even higher once financing costs are included. Many new nuclear power plant proposals in the U.S. and elsewhere were initiated based on these early optimistic projections. 
http://energyeconomyonline.com/Boiling_the_Frog.html

As the Obama administration tries to steer America toward cleaner sources of energy, it would do well to consider the cautionary tale of this new-generation nuclear reactor site. After four years of construction and thousands of recorded defects and deficiencies, the price tag on the reactor in Finland, has climbed at least 50 percent.  The massive power plant under construction on muddy terrain on this Finnish island was supposed to be the showpiece of a nuclear renaissance. The most powerful reactor ever built, its modular design was supposed to make it faster and cheaper to build. And it was supposed to be safer, too. But things have not gone as planned. After four years of construction and thousands of defects and deficiencies, the reactor’s 3 billion euro price tag, about $4.2 billion, has climbed at least 50 percent. And while the reactor was originally meant to be completed this summer, Areva, the French company building it, and the utility that ordered it, are no longer willing to make certain predictions on when it will go online. While the American nuclear industry has predicted clear sailing after its first plants are built, the problems in Europe suggest these obstacles may be hard to avoid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

- Let’s hope the Obama folks take this seriously. - Editor
Energy Regulatory Chief Says New Coal, Nuclear Plants May Be Unnecessary
Jon Wellinghoff, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said renewables like wind and solar will provide enough energy.  No new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said today. “We may not need any, ever,” Jon Wellinghoff told reporters at a U.S. Energy Association forum. The FERC chairman’s comments go beyond those of other Obama administration officials, who have strongly endorsed greater efficiency and renewables deployment but also say nuclear and fossil energies will continue playing a major role. Wellinghoff’s view also goes beyond the consensus outlook in the electric power industry about future sources of electricity. The industry has assumed that more baseload generation would provide part of an increasing demand for power, along with a rapid deployment of renewable generation, smart grid technologies and demand reduction strategies. He added, “People talk about, ‘Oh, we need baseload.’ It’s like people saying we need more computing power, we need mainframes. We don’t need mainframes, we have distributed computing.” Problems with unsteady power generation from wind will be overcome, he said. “That’s exactly what all the load response will do, the load response will provide that leveling ability, number one,” he said. “Number two, if you have wide interconnections across the entire interconnect, you’re going to have a lot of diversity with that wind. Not all the wind is going to stop at once. You’ll have some of it stop, some of it start, and all of that diversity is going to help you, as well.” But planning for modifying the grid to integrate renewables must take place in the next three to five years, he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/04/22/22greenwire-no-need-to-build-new-us-coal-or-nuclear-plants-10630.html

- The costs of responsibly storing nuclear wastes for even 500 years is so high, in a real economics world we wouldn’t have gotten into nuclear in the first place. With Yucca being in an earthquake zone, this lack of funding makes sense, and hopefully will raise awareness about the problems with wastes. France is only able to reprocess roughly 1 percent of their wastes, which is not a solution, and their dumping some wastes into the ocean isn’t an answer, either. This news seems hopeful! - Editor
Nuclear waste dogs US energy policy
President Obama’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2010 all but sinks prospects to store America’s nuclear waste at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. But it leaves wide open the role of nuclear power in building “a new economy powered by clean and secure energy” – and the question of what to do with existing, highly toxic nuclear waste.  “The nation has already accumulated 60,000 metric tons of spent nuclear waste, and the material is going to have to be isolated from the environment for hundreds and thousands of years,” says Edwin Lyman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “There’s no way to make the waste disappear. No matter what the French say, there’s no alternative to having a mined geological repository,” he says. Moreover, the budget document released by the White House last week makes no mention of nuclear power as an element in a transition to a low-carbon economy. Instead, it cites the need for increased support for solar, biomass, geothermal, wind, and low-carbon-emission coal power.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0306/p02s01-usgn.html

- The Power Shift wasn’t the only protest; in Germany, there was the issue of the dangers of nuclear wastes and the fact that if nuclear power plants really paid for the safe disposal of their wastes, the cost comparisons for nuclear power would make the truth clear- it is not even close to cheap! - Editor
15,000 in German anti-nuclear chain of light
Despite icy weather and light rain, some 15,000 Germans demonstrated against nuclear power generation on Thursday evening with a chain of light 52 kilometres long, (linking 3 nuclear waste sites.). Although most protesters were from the region, people travelled from all over Germany to the demo, called by trade unions, churches, advocacy groups, local governments, neighbourhood associations, firms, farmers with their tractors, to protest against irresponsible handling of nuclear waste. The chain of light was to show the connections between the various waste dumps in Germany. The anti-nuclear movement is particularly incensed about a recently passed law that will have taxpayers footing the bill for nuclear dumps although the waste in them was produced by power companies, which will not be paying.  If waste disposal costs were completely factored into the power price, opponents say, the legend of cheap nuclear electricity would be blown away.
http://de.indymedia.org/2009/02/242814.shtml