Tom Craddick, the former Speaker of the Texas House and currently a Republican incumbent Texas House Member, has given money to his favorite incumbent Democratic Representatives. So, what’s the problem? Craddick laundered the money through a PAC instead of a direct contribution. In response, Texans for Public Justice, a political advocacy group, has filed a formal complaint to the Texas Ethics Commission, claiming this is illegal.
Here’s what happened: Craddick gave $250,000 to the Texas Jobs & Opportunity Build A Secure Future PAC (Jobs PAC) on January 10, 2008, along with instructions to distribute the money to incumbent Democratic Representatives; Kevin Bailey, Dawnna Dukes, Kino Flores, and Aaron Pena. Each representative was offered $50,000. All the Representatives, except Dukes who was wary of already existing criticism about ties to Craddick from her opponent, accepted the money.
According to Texas Campaign Finance laws (Texas Election Code Chapter 253.001), contributing money through any intermediary organization without disclosing its original source is illegal. However, it probably happens more than voters will ever know, as it does not leave a paper trail back to the original contributor.
Texans for Public Justice Director Craig McDonald says: “Tom Craddick wanted to move tens of thousands of dollars to his favorite Democrats without letting voters know. Hiding the true source of campaign funds is illegal. Craddick could have contributed the money directly and openly. Instead, he used Texas Jobs to launder his money and keep Texans in dark.” This issue, therefore, deals with more than disregarding Campaign Finance Laws; this is behavior that also leads to voter ignorance.
And here comes the rub with most campaign finance problems: it’s not necessarily the recipients who are at fault here. Craddick, in an attempt at political payback, gave money to those who had voted for him as Speaker. As in most cases with campaign finance laws, we walk a very fine line between bribery, kickbacks, etc and legitimate donations. The public can’t know what was in the mind and heart of Rep Craddick, much less those of Bailey, Pena, and Flores (who, we should note, none of whom voted for Craddick’s re-election for Speaker in 2009)– BUT only by instituting a system of public financing can we be certain that our candidates are running clean and are only representing the wishes of their constituents. I think it would be a great step forward for public confidence in elections and also rid our elected officials of the task of fundraising, something not one elected official I know claims to like. Win-Win-Win.
Posted in Campaign Finance | Tagged campaign, campaign contributions, Campaign Finance, clean elections texas, Fair Elections Now Act, public financing, texans for public justice, Texas |
The Texas Political Alliance hopes that everyone reading this today has ensured they are registered to vote in the November election, as the deadline for doing so is Monday, October 5.
The Texas Cloverleaf reviews proposed changes to the city of Denton’s charter that will be on the November ballot.
CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme notices Rick Perry has had a busy week what with Channeling Glenn Beck and messing up a wrongful execution investigation.
TXsharon had a hard time keeping up with all the fracking, moving, shaking and gasping for toxic air in the Barnett Shale this week so there is a BS recap that includes a recently released URGENT alert for all current and former residents of DISH–formerly Clark–Texas to complete and submit a health survey.
Bay Area Houston wonders what $640 a frickin hour buys you in Houston Mayor’s race.
If a Republican holds an on-line event, will they properly provision for the people who want to join it? McBlogger’s pretty sure they won’t and isn’t terribly surprised that they blamed it on the nefarious actions of others.
WCNews at Eye On Williamson posts on the Gov. Perry’s latest outrage. It’s another example of why Texas needs accountability in our state’s government, Perry’s pride and the Willingham case.
This week on Left of College Station, Teddy writes about why he gets up early on Saturday mornings to escort patients at Planned Parenthood; guest blogger Litia writes about the frustrations they fell while trying to get students to participate in class at Texas A&M. Left of College Station also covers the week in headlines.
XicanoPwr is encouraging people to vote for Prop 4, the “national research university” proposition, on Nov 3. Texas currently has three flagship universities – The University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University and Rice University – compared to states such as California, with nine, and New York, with seven. If passed, it would allow seven “emerging universities” – Texas Tech, University of Houston, University of North Texas, University of Texas at Arlington, University of Texas at Dallas, University of Texas at El Paso and University of Texas at San Antonio – tap into a $500 million education fund to help them be part of the elite three and “achieve national prominence” as a major research university.
WhosPlayin’ has video from Denton County’s “Donkeyfest” where candidates John Sharp for U.S. Senate and Neil Durrance for U.S. Congress spoke.
Off the Kuff has a simple suggestion for how Governor Perry and Williamson County DA John Bradley can counter the perception that Perry’s elevation to Chair of the Texas Forensic Sciences Commission was a blatantly political move designed to bury the findings of the Cameron Todd Willingham case: Reschedule the meeting that the Commission was going to hold before Perry’s maneuver.
Neil at Texas Liberal offered a post this week about the famous Dogs Playing Poker paintings. These paintings have been around for more than 100 years now. How many of our blog posts will last in any meaningful respect beyond next week?
The Doctorate of Shadetree Psychology is hereby awarded to PDiddie of Brains and Eggs, for his compelling dissertation that Rick Perry is a sociopath.
At TexasKaos, Libby Shaw gives Senators Hutchison and Cornyn a chance to put up or shut up . If government health care is so horrible, so “socialist”, give up your govenment coverage. Read the rest here: Senators Hutchison and Cornyn: Get Us What You Have or Give Up Yours.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged bay area houston, brains and eggs, Clark, Denton, denton county, Dish, eye on williamson, fracking, gas drilling, glenn beck, john bradley, john sharp, left of college station, mcblogger, neil durrance, off the kuff, planned parenthood, Rick Perry, Senator Cornyn, senator hutchison, south texas chisme, texa a&m, Texas, texas kaos, texas liberal, texas progressive alliance, Toxics, txsharon, whosplayin, willingham case, xicano power |
Thursday, October 8th the Esperanza Peace & Justice center continues the Other and Out & Beyond film series with a day on nuclear energy and the devastating effects of uranium mining, nuclear waste and contamination. This event is Free and open to the public, though donations are appreciated.
All films will be held at the Esperanza Peace and Justice Center at 922 San Pedro, San Antonio, TX 78212. The center can be reached at 210-228-0201 or at www.esperanzacenter.org.
Must see movies from the 70’s and 80’s:
2pm The China Syndrome
A modern nightmare nearly becomes reality in this tension-filled movie starring Jane Fonda as an ambitious TV reporter covering a story on energy sources who is present at a nuclear plant when a startling accident occurs that nearly causes the meltdown of the reactor. 122 mins/US/1979
4:15 pm Silkwood
This dramatic film is based on the true story of Karen Silkwood, a ran and file worker at a plutonium factory, who becomes an activist after being accidentally exposed to a lethal dose of radiation. Starring Meryl Streep. 131 mins/US/1983
Life & Land: The Hidden Costs of Nuclear
7:00 pm Climate of Hope
While the threat of climate change is now widely accepted in the community, the potential for neuclear power stations in Australia has raised questions about the best strategy to move to a low-carbon economy. This animated doucmentary takes us on a tour through the science of climate change, the nuclear fuel chain and the remarkable energy revolution that is under wya. 30 mins/Australia/2007
7:40 pm Woven Ways
Told in their own words with no narration, Woven Ways is a lyrical testimony to Navajo beauty and hope in the face of grave environmental injustice. For decades, uranium miing has contaminated the people, land and livestock that sustain their culuture and economy. The film chronicles each family’s steady resolve to hold on to the land, air and water, not for themselves, but for generations that will come.
8:30 pm Platica — The evening program will be followed by a community platica on nuclear energy including local activists and experts who will share their knowledge on issues of waste, water, mining, renewable energy alternatives and local organizing.
Posted in Nuclear | Tagged Energy, esperanza peace and justice center, Nuclear, nuclear waste, nukes, plutonium, Texas, uranium mining |
By Arjun Makhijani – Special to the San Antonio Express-News
CPS Energy is asking its board and the San Antonio City Council for permission to sell $400 million of bonds to follow the $276 million CPS Energy has already spent to get an option to buy a nuclear pig in a poke.
Yet, the price that Toshiba, the company that would build the plant, would charge won’t be fully disclosed until 2012; a “baseline” cost estimate will be disclosed this winter. A commitment of such a vast additional sum is premature, at best.
First, CPS’ electricity demand projections are suspect. Its projected annual growth rate would increase from about 1.5 percent during 2009-2020 to about 2.4 percent after that. Yet, stringent building and appliance efficiency regulations are in the works nationally. Carbon prices are likely to rise steeply after 2020.
CPS’ assumption about an increasing growth rate makes neither market sense nor common sense. The risk to San Antonio would not be as serious had CPS done a careful analysis of the options. It has not. It only considered coal (a poor risk) and natural gas as potential alternatives.
CPS did not consider compressed-air energy storage, in use on a large scale both in Alabama and Germany. An investment of $400 million could convert the 1,250 megawatts of wind energy that CPS has or plans to acquire into about 400 megawatts of baseload capacity. CPS estimates a cost of $9,000 per kilowatt for a concentrating solar thermal power plant with heat storage, yet utilities are signing contracts (or purchased power agreements) for half this amount or less today. Google’s green energy chief, Bill Weihl, recently stated that solar projects typically cost $2,500 to $4,000 per kilowatt, plus $1,000 for storage.
Moreover, these costs are coming down. CPS did not consider combined heat and power, which is commercial, biomass used in an integrated gasification combined cycle plant, or elements of a smart grid that could convert intermittent renewable capacity into dependable capacity for loads like washing machines and air conditioners. It doesn’t appear to have considered recent drops in natural gas prices.
In brief, CPS has dropped the ball on alternatives. The argument that CPS must meet urgent deadlines to preserve its nuclear option should not rush the board or the city. NRG, CPS’ 50-50 partner in the project, can hardly proceed without CPS. Without CPS’ stellar bond rating and money, NRG, with its junk bond rating, would be far less likely to get federal loan guarantees.
Indeed, in my view, without CPS, NRG would not have a viable project. During the Clean Technology Forum in San Antonio on Sept. 16, Mayor Julián Castro promised the public that CPS’ investment decision will be made on merits.
However, this cannot be done now, because CPS has not put the options on the table that would enable a comparison on the merits. An independent expert panel could probably do a study for City Council in six months, possibly less. It would be unwise to risk $400 million more without it.
Arjun Makhijani is president of Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. He has published two studies on CPS nuclear costs.
Posted in Nuclear | Tagged Arjun Makhijani, City Council, CPS Energy, Nuclear, San Antonio, South Texas Project, STP, Texas, toshiba |
Public Citizen hopes for climate change legislation that will direct us in becoming more energy efficient, less dependent on foreign oil, and better stewards of out state’s environment. As we await the outcome of the Waxman/Markey and Kerry/Boxer legislation in Congress, Governor Perry irresponsibly dismisses the issue with outrageous arguments to scare up more votes for the upcoming governor’s race.
In a speech that New York Times reporter John Rudolf described as fiery, Governor Perry addressed the climate-change bill passed by the U.S. House of Representative in June. The Waxman-Markey bill is now facing great opposition by many Republicans ,along with some conservative Democrats, while being debated in the Senate.
Perry anticipates that the “misguided” piece of legislation, as he describes it, will wreak economic disaster on the state. “Between 200,000 and 300,000 Texans who today work to supply the rest of America with energy would find themselves out of work,” said the governor. But these numbers do not conform with the numbers given out by Martin Huber, the Deputy Comptroller of the State of Texas. Perry’s numbers are more than a hundred thousand off. Both numbers, given by Perry and Huber, disregard what researchers say and boldly ignore the serious economic impact of climate change on the state. Texas has already experienced a devastating drought this year which has negatively impacted the agriculture of the state.
Texas needs some fundamental change in terms of energy production. In addition, a recent study conducted by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Boston and the Center for American Progress shows that investments in clean-energy have the potential of creating more than 153,000 jobs in the state of Texas alone — about 90,000 of which are jobs for those with lower educational credentials.
Such figures would have brought down the state’s unemployment to 3.6 percent in 2008. These numbers prove that in investing in green energy, the state has a great potential in ameliorating its climatic conditions as well as boosting its economy.
Posted in Energy, Global Warming | Tagged Rick Perry, Texas, waxman-markey |
For the second time in a month, it’s very popular among my friends and co-workers that they know a BYU Cougar (the first, of course, after the football game against Oklahoma, exciting my Longhorn-lovin friends and officemates, but I digress…)
From the Edmunds Green Car blog:
Brigham Young University Scientist: Sugar + Weed Killer = Direct Carbohydrate Fuel Cell
Researchers at Brigham Young University claim to have developed a fuel cell that harvests electricity from glucose and other sugars known as carbohydrates using a common weed killer as a catalyst.
Lead researcher and BYU chemistry professor Gerald Watt (pictured) said in an article published in the August issue of the Journal of the Electrochemical Society that carbohydrates are very energy rich and that he and his colleagues sought a catalyst that would extract the electrons from the carbs and transfer them to an electrode.
Watt said he and his colleagues discovered a solution in the form of a cheap and abundant weed killer. He described the effectiveness of the herbicide as a boon to carbohydrate-based fuel cells.
By contrast, hydrogen-based fuel cells such as those developed by General Motors require costly platinum as a catalyst.
The study conducted experiments that yielded a 29 percent conversion rate, or the transfer of 7 of the 24 available electrons per glucose molecule, Watt reported.
“We showed you can get a lot more out of glucose than other people have done before,” said Dean Wheeler, who was part of the research team. “Now we’re trying to get the power density higher so the technology will be more commercially attractive.”
This isn’t the first time that a glucose-based fuel cell has been reported. In 2007, Japanese scientists announced they had invented a device that used sunlight to convert glucose into hydrogen to power a fuel cell.
Posted in Energy, Global Warming, Renewables | Tagged biodiesel, biofuels, BYU, cars, ethanol, fuel cells, renewable fuels, sugar, Texas, weedkiller |
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is going to be one of our ongoing series on climate change and how we can all make a personal impact. Since today is World Vegetarian Day, I think this is an appropriate way to kick things off.
With various climate change proposals circulating on Capitol Hill, and the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen right around the corner, we are all reminded that legislative action and global cooperation are needed in order to protect our planet. While it is the responsibility of our leaders to work out an effective agreement, we must not forget that normal people like us can also make a big difference in reducing greenhouse gases. The Green-up your life! blog series will discuss the many ways in which we can all make a difference, just by making small changes in the way we live. Today, it is about what’s for dinner.
Many discussions about climate change are full of scientific jargon and are political in nature, making them hard to follow. We hear about increasing wind and solar power, implementing cap and trade, and reducing industrial carbon emissions. For those of us who want to personally contribute to the effort, we might switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles, or install solar panels on our homes. In addition to these large (and sometimes expensive) personal changes, there are many little things we can all do on a daily basis to make our planet healthier. One thing we can all do to decrease global warming is not always on the top of the list: eat less meat and dairy.
So, does the agricultural industry really contribute that much to climate change? Yup. Meat production accounts for a whopping 18% of total global greenhouse emissions–more than all forms of transportation put together. About 9% of anthropogenic (read: derived from human activity) carbon dioxide emissions are attributed to agriculture. In addition, methane, the smelly heat-trapping gas emitted from both ends of livestock, warms the world 20% faster than carbon dioxide. Almost 40% of methane in the U.S. is generated from enteric fermentation (which takes place during a ruminant animal’s digestion process) related to animal husbandry. Beyond carbon dioxide and methane, agriculture is responsible for 65 % of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide only accounts for 5% of total greenhouse gases, but has heat trapping effects 310 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.
Unfortunately, that’s not all. More than 37% of the earth’s land is used for agricultural purposes, and as the global demand for meat increases, the creation of more grazing land is a major contributor to deforestation, especially in Latin America, where 70 % of previously forested land in the Amazon is used as pasture, with the remaining 30% largely used for growing feed crops.
Beef is the largest culprit, but there are similar stories for all farm animals, including seafood. There is no doubt that agricultural practices contribute to global warming, both directly through emissions created from all levels of production, and indirectly through deforestation. Beyond this, it is just plain inefficient (as tasty as it might be) to get our calories this way. While most grains, fruits, or veggies require 2 calories of fossil fuel energy to create 1 calorie of food, this ratio grows up to 80:1 for beef!
When breaking bad news, honesty is the best policy. Nobody really wants to hear it, (and the agricultural industry most certainly doesn’t want to tell it), but as responsible stewards of our planet, and as daily consumers of food, one of the best things we can do is to eat less meat and dairy products. (Cutting down just on meat, but not dairy, will not make a big difference, because dairy cows burp and produce manure too). The silver lining is that what is better for the earth is also better for our health. Studies show that veggie-based diets decrease the chance of suffering from numerous types of cancers, heart disease, obesity, and diabetes. When we do choose to eat meat, buying from local ranchers who raise pasture grazing livestock will ensure that we are limiting our impact on the earth. It appears more expensive to buy meat this way – but not when all the hidden costs are accounted for.
Nobody is asking that we all take up a diet of strictly brussels sprouts and brown rice, but if we all spend a little more time learning about the impact that our food systems have on the planet, a greener diet may just start to look more appealing. Stay tuned for next time, when, sticking to the topic of food, the importance of purchasing organic products will be discussed.
Posted in Consumers, Global Warming | Tagged climate change, consumer, food, Global Warming, Texas |
This just in from EPA:
LOS ANGELES – U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will announce today in a keynote address at the California Governor’s Global Climate Summit that the Agency has taken a significant step to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Administrator will announce a proposal requiring large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year to obtain construction and operating permits covering these emissions. These permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies and energy efficiency measures to minimize GHG emissions when facilities are constructed or significantly modified.
The full text of the Administrators remarks will be posted at www.epa.gov later this afternoon.
UPDATED: that text is now available here.
“Wow” would be an understatement. This on the heels of the release of Senator Kerry and Boxer and their climate bill. Here’s my statement on that subject:
Sept. 30, 2009
Reaction to Boxer-Kerry Climate Change Discussion Draft
Statement of Andy Wilson, Global Warming Program Director, Public Citizen’s Texas Office
The Boxer-Kerry draft includes some important measures to address climate change and create new green jobs, but it is simply not sufficient to solve climate change or create the green jobs revolution we need. While an improvement in some ways over Waxman-Markey and its billions in giveaways to polluting special interests, the discussion draft put forth by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) still punts on many of the most contentious issues, such as how and to whom emissions allowances will be allocated or auctioned. Waxman-Markey started off similarly strong and vague but was weakened as it went through the committee hearing process. Sen. Boxer must work to strengthen the bill as she guides it through her Environment and Public Works Committee hearings.
The discussion draft calls for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas pollution from 2005 levels by 2020. This is a slight improvement over the 17 percent called for by Waxman-Markey, but is far short of the goals our best science tells us we need to make. Specifically, the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us in order to avoid the worst of global climate catastrophe, we need to cut our pollution levels 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels.
Japan will cut its emissions 25 percent by 2020; the EU has signaled it may meet or beat that goal. Why would we set ourselves to lag behind the rest of the world? We must win the technology races in manufacturing advanced energy technology so we do not replace importing oil with importing solar cells.
The draft should be applauded for including strong language to protect consumers and protect the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate emissions in the future.
Among the changes we recommend to the draft are alterations to address these problems:
Allowances should be auctioned 100 percent. President Obama’s budget continues to show revenues from a 100 percent auction and EPA analysis of Waxman-Markey found this to be the least regressive method of implementation.
Subsidies for nuclear should be removed. Despite recent findings by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Commissioner Jon Wellinghoff that the United States will never need to build another traditional power plant, the bill spends considerable space on (Subtitle C, Sec 131) and would allocate significant resources to nuclear power. Nuclear is neither as carbon-free nor as safe as the draft language claims. Neither is it cost-effective. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated half of all federal loan guarantees for nuclear loan guarantees will fail, meaning any extension of these guarantees is a pre-emptive bailout of the nuclear industry leaving the taxpayers on the hook for up to half a trillion dollars.
The draft still relies on more than two billion tons in offsets – actually expanding permitted offsets from the Waxman-Markey language. This has huge potential consequences. It means that despite the intent of the draft, we could conceivably end up having failed to reduce emissions at all – and with major questions about whether alleged offsets were even achieved. While the offset oversight language is considerably better than in Waxman-Markey, it still is troubling that we are relying on offsets rather than actually decreasing our pollution.
The draft does nothing to improve vague language in Waxman-Markey, which could effectively grandfather more than 40 proposed coal-fired power plants, including up to a dozen in Texas alone. These proposed plants would be exempted from new performance standards in the bill, while a plant built just three years from now will have to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by half.
With Kerry-Boxer maintaining EPA’s right to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, this sets the table nicely to try to get a bill passed which will both solve climate change and create the new energy economy we need. We just need to improve the ground of the special-interest-riddled Congress. Tip of my hat to Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman for their articles on this earlier this week about the severity of the problem that faces us and the relatively lame responses by our government. As a palate cleanser, please to enjoy this 15 second video from [adult swim] about what the REAL problem may be:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUAUnjhB7l4]
Posted in Coal, Energy, Global Warming | Tagged ACES, cap and trade, Carbon Dioxide, CEJAPA, Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, climate change, Coal, coal plant, Congress, EPA, Global Warming, green jobs, Kerry-Boxer, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, senate, solar, Texas, waxman-markey |
September 30, 2009 by Public Citizen Texas
Great news about the legal fight against STP.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel admitted four more of the contentions (all water related) brought by SEED Coalition, bringing the grand total to 5 contentions admitted for a hearing with 7 still pending.
This is more than anywhere else in the country.
This increased uncertainty *should* make CPS and San Antonio City Council think twice about going forward.
Look! A Press Release! (fully continued after the jump if you want to get into all the legal contentions) As always, for more info go read everything at NukeFreeTexas.org
For Immediate Release: September 30, 2009
Contacts: Karen Hadden, SEED Coalition,
Susan Dancer, South Texas Association for Responsible Energy
Robert V. Eye, Attorney for Intervenors
Citizens Gain Ground in STP Intervention Over Water Concerns
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Admits
Four Additional Water Related Contentions for a Hearing
Citizen opposition to two proposed nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project (STP) continues with another success. Yesterday the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) Panel ruled that South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) had failed to adequately analyze the environmental impacts of radioactive contaminated water and water availability, issues or “contentions” raised by concerned citizens in their Petition to Intervene in the proposed expansion at STP. The Order is of national significance since STPNOC is the first in the nation to request licensing in 30 years.
“Citizens intervening in the South Texas Project’s licensing process gained significant legal ground yesterday when the ASLB Panel ruled that four additional contentions be admitted for a hearing,” said Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the SEED Coalition, one of the Intervenors. “Intervenors now have a total of five admissible contentions, with seven contentions related to fires and explosions and losses of large areas of the plant still pending.” The licensing process is likely to be delayed as a result of additional contentions. It was delay and construction problems that led to the first reactors at STP coming in six times over budget.
SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and the Bay City based South Texas Association for Responsible Energy (STARE) are Intervenors in the case. Attorney Robert V. Eye went before the ASLB Panel in June and argued the admissibility of 28 contentions challenging the license application for two additional reactors, Units 3 and 4, at the South Texas Project.
Continue Reading »
Posted in Nuclear | Tagged CPS, CPS Energy, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, San Antonio, SEED Coalition, South Texas Project, STP, Texas |
In case you didn’t catch our editorial in the San Antonio Express News this summer, it’s worth repeating.
By Matthew Johnson – Express-News Guest Voices
CPS Energy announced its cost estimate for two more nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project near Bay City last week. The $13-billion price tag is the latest estimate in a sustained and systemic low-balling by utilities wishing to receive government subsidies.
CPS’ partner, NRG Energy, recently pegged the cost of units 3 and 4 at $10 billion, a figure that has jumped nearly 50 percent from its original estimate of $5.4 billion.
Other analyses, however, have estimated the cost of two new reactors to be nearly 100 percent higher than the CPS estimate. Former Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel official Clarence Johnson recently estimated the cost of STP expansion to be $20 billion to $22 billion, while nuclear engineer and president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Dr. Arjun Makhijani estimated a cost of up to $17.5 billion in 2008.
A new study by Mark Cooper, of the Vermont Law School, analyzed numerous cost estimates of the so-called nuclear renaissance beginning around 2001. He discovered that early estimates of new nuclear reactors were made predominantly by industry and academics and were optimistic and eager to rejuvenate the industry.
Since then, utilities’ estimates have shown similar wishful thinking, but continue to rise. Independent analysts and Wall Street, Cooper shows, offer the most realistic estimates that are much higher.
The history of the STP expansion effort follows this pattern. CPS and NRG have been attempting to gain support in federal, state and city government since they submitted their application to build two new reactors to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2007.
Wall Street estimates also place a similar and continuously rising price tag on new reactors. The bond-rating agency Moody’s predicted $5,000-6,000 per kilowatt for new reactors almost two years ago, which translates to $16.2 billion for STP expansion, and recently indicated that it could downgrade bond ratings on utilities constructing new nuclear reactors.
The federal government established an $18.5 billion subsidy to back loans taken out to construct new reactors. STP expansion advocates brag about being on the short list for part of these loan guarantees, but proponents and opponents agree that more reactors won’t be built if the feds don’t pony up the dough.
The reason is simple. Investors are squeamish to lend money for projects with such a high risk of defaulting on repayments. Delay and cost overruns increase risk. STP’s original reactors took eight years longer than planned to complete and costs soared six times over original estimates.
CPS Energy has faster and cheaper alternatives. Their recent announcement on the 27 megawatt solar plant in West Texas, the Mission Verde plan to develop 250 megawatts of solar and new wind contracts plus their goal to save 771 megawatts through energy efficiency by 2020 are shining examples of the path they should focus on to keep rates stable and low in the future. This path also creates more local jobs.
City Council will soon have to decide on San Antonio’s involvement in new reactors. It must vote no on nuclear to protect San Antonians from bearing the overwhelming economic burden of building costly, dangerous and unnecessary nuclear reactors.
Matthew Johnson is an energy policy analyst for Public Citizen’s Texas office.
Posted in Energy, Nuclear | Tagged CPS, matthew johnson, Nuclear, nuclear reactors, Public Citizen, South Texas Project, STP, Texas, too expensive |
Dallas Morning News journalist Elizabeth Souder shares the Six things economists wish journalists knew about greenhouse gas reduction on the DMN’ Energy and Environment Blog. They sound a lot like the 6 things EVERYONE should know about greenhouse gas reduction, so I thought I’d share them. Kudos to Elizabeth Souder, and be sure to keep up with her work on the Energy and Environment Blog.
I’m attending the McCormick Energy Solutions Conference for journalists this week at Ohio State University. Andy Keeler, an economist with the John Glenn School of Public Affairs here at the university, offered six things journalist should know about greenhouse gas reduction.
1. It makes economic sense to reduce greenhouse gases. Even though doing so costs money, it will end up costing us even more if we do nothing. Dealing with the effects of global warming, of seeing Texas and the Southwest become a dustbowl, could be financially devastating.
2. Cap and trade, which is the method Congess is considering to regulate greenhouse gases, does two distinct things. By issuing tradable allowances for greenhouse gas emissions, the system raises the price of energy produced from greenhouse gas-heavy fossil fuels. It also generates revenue for the government by selling those allowances, and the money can be used for anything.
“Criticism of cap and trade which mixes these two together is deliberately misleading,” Keeler said.
3. Cap and trade creates broad and efficient incentives. Using market signals as part of our response to climate change risk is good public policy.
4. Who gets the money the government makes by selling allowances is a public expenditures question, not an environmental question.
5. A carbon tax and a cap and trade program have strong similarities. But the details of the program are more important than the choice between the two.
Keeler concludes that, even though economists tend to agree that a tax is cleaner and more elegant than a system of trading allowances, the current bill includes reasonable goals. Therefore, rather than starting from scratch and renegotiating the cap, which leads to a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and an 80 percent cut by 2050, Keeler prefers to stick with the current bill.
6. Trade and competitiveness concerns exist, but are neither broad nor large. The bill could have significant effects on the iron, steel, aluminum, cement and paper industries, but those problems could be solved with targeted rules, rather than broad regulations.
“It’s not to belittle the problem for people in these industries, but it’s misleading to cast it as an overall disaster from a trade point of view,” he said.
Posted in Global Warming | Tagged cap and trade, carbon tax, climate change, Dallas Morning News, elizabeth souder, Energy, environment, fossil fuels, Global Warming, greenhouse gasses, public policy, Texas |
Tonight at 6 pm is the final CPS hearing regarding the proposed nuclear reactors. The trustees will vote at their next meeting, Oct. 5th, on whether to participate in the proposed two additional nuclear reactors and spend an additional $400 million. This could be the last chance for citizens to directly address CPS on this extremely important issue.
Nuclear reactors come with serious financial, health and security risks, and are not the answer to San Antonio’s energy needs. We are increasingly concerned about the misinformation, spin and fuzzy math used by CPS to defend its risky nuclear proposal. CPS Energy knows that safer, more affordable options already exist today. These better energy choices could build green jobs locally.
WHEN: Today – Monday, September 28th at 6 pm (Come at 5 pm to sign up to speak)
WHERE: Lobby of Villita Assembly Building, 401 Villita Street, San Antonio
Hope you can make it out!
For more info visit: www.Energiamia.org
Energía Mía includes members of Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, Southwest Workers Union, Sun Energy, Former San Antonio City Council members, Project Verde, Alamo Group of the Sierra Club, Highland Hills Neighborhood Association, Jefferson Heights Neighborhood Association, Texas Drought Project, Green Party, San Antonio Area Progressive Action Coalition, SEED Coalition, and Public Citizen.
Posted in Nuclear | Tagged CPS, CPS Energy, Energia Mia, nuclear reactors, San Antonio, South Texas Project, STP, Texas |
As early voting for the November elections looms on the horizon, the Texas Progressive Alliance says good-bye to September and hello to another weekly blog roundup.
BREAKING NEWS: Natural Gas Development Brings “amazing and very high” Levels of Carcinogens and Neurotoxins to Barnett Shale area! Take a deep breath before you read this study because the findings will take your breath away! TXsharon at Bluedaze: DRILLING REFORM FOR TEXAS broke this story and the study evaluation by MacAuthur (Genius) Award winner, Wilma Subra.
This week Left of College Station, Teddy reports on why the anti-choice movement is not about abortion but about the oppression of women. Also, guest blogger Litia writes about asking non-tradition questions about Texas A&M traditions; Litia writes a weekly guest blog for College Station about a liberal teaching in Aggieland. Left of College Station also coves the week in headlines.
Neil at Texas Liberal writes that Socialist candidate for Mayor of Houston Amanda Ulman should run a serious campaign or not run at all. There once was a solid base of socialist voters in Texas and the U.S. Who says that cannot someday happen again?
McBlogger takes aim at people who think that adjusting to climate change is just something that will unfairly hurt the poor.
Off the Kuff contemplates the possible entry of Farouk Shami into the Governor’s race.
The old Easter Lemming has a useful post on voting for the Constitutional Amendments in his area.
The Texas Cloverleaf looks at the 22 year high TX unemployment rate. What recession? We’re in one?
Agriculture commissioner Todd Staples opened his mouth and out fell a big wad of stupid. Stupid so ignorant that it topped anything Rick Perry or John Cornyn or even Glenn Beck could manage this week. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs has it — if you can stand it.
WhosPlayin followed up on an open records request for internal emails related to Lewisville ISD’s decision to ban President Obama’s speech to children. The emails, including a racially charged email from a board member to the superintendant, do not paint a pretty picture..
WCNews at Eye On Williamson posts on money, energy, and the economy in the Texas governor’s race, Perry’s cap and trade photo op.
CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme notes Rick Perry does his best George Bush cowboy imitation with Ranger Recon.
Over at TexasKaos, boadicea, Warrior Queen, is seeking a pulse, any pulse over at the Tom Schieffer campaign, as she opines that Tom Schieffer Needs Something Original to Offer. It seems that lifting policy ideas from Hank Gilbert is the best he can do right now. Read the rest at TexasKaos.
Posted in Global Warming, Uncategorized | Tagged Barnett shale, carcinogens, climate change, college station, drilling reform, easter lemming, economy, Energy, farouk shami, glenn beck, hank gilbert, john cornyn, lewisville isd, natural gas, neurotoxins, obama, Rick Perry, Texas, texas a&m, texas liberal, tom schieffer |
If you’re interested in the San Antonio South Texas Project nuclear issue and haven’t been reading Greg Harman’s work for the San Antonio Current, you are seriously missing out.
His latest story is a cover feature titled “Nukes Mean Mines” and part of a life cycle analysis of the South Nuclear Texas Project. First things first: where does that fuel (uranium) come from, and what is the impact of uranium mining? That answer can be found right here in Texas, and Harman’s investigative reporting brings the story of those mines to life.
Keep “cued” in to the QueQue blog as well, where you’ll find even more background and reporting on nuclear power in Texas and its toxic legacy.
Posted in Nuclear | Tagged Greg Harman, Mining, Nuclear, nukes, nukes means mines, SA Current, San Antonio, South Texas Project, Texas, Uranium |
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has circulated a draft amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill—the Environmental Protection Agency’s annual spending bill—calling to prevent the Agency from regulating stationary sources of greenhouse gases, despite a mandate from the US Supreme Court two years ago to do just that.
The amendment would ignore worldwide scientific consensus that indicates carbon dioxide emissions from both stationary and mobile sources as a major threat to public health and welfare. Logic, science, and the law agree! Global warming pollution from power plants and oil refineries is just as harmful as that from cars and other passenger vehicles. According to major scientific bodies, such as the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, carbon dioxide emissions—no matter what its source may be—are warming the planet, as well as threatening public health and the welfare of our citizens.
Furthermore, the Murkowski amendment would severely undermine the Clean Air Act’s provisions to protect public health and the environment. Oil refineries and coal plants are among the biggest global warming polluters in the nation. The amendment would let these big players off the hook, delaying any momentum our nation has in transitioning to sources of clean energy. If the amendment is rejected, our ongoing shift toward solar and wind energy will drastically benefit our nation, providing a continuous and cleaner supply of energy that will only get cheaper over time, while creating millions of clean energy jobs.
The United States is the single largest producer of harmful gases, with China and India following closely behind. China has even surpassed the US at times in CO2 emissions, although with the current economic recession it’s tough to know who is winning, or should we say losing, the carbon pollution race. Our nation alone contributes nearly 25 percent to global greenhouse gas emissions each year. It is feared that the amendment would make a loud statement heard across the world; one that says the U.S. is not serious about reducing and controlling its global warming pollution, giving developing countries a ‘get out of jail free’ card when it comes to reducing their own carbon emissions. This could be devastating to international negotiations slated to take place in Copenhagen in December to create a framework to follow up to the Kyoto Protocol.
Lastly, the Murkowski amendment could inevitably prevent the EPA from preparing to implement climate legislation. The Agency would be prohibited from collecting information and expertise it may need to effectively implement climate change legislation, such as the carbon-capture-and-sequestration bonus allowance program, free allowances for energy-intensive manufacturers, or early-offset programs.
If Murkowski gets her way, we could see a vote this week. This is the wrong message for our Senators to send, who should not be trying to overturn a Supreme Court ruling and impede international climate negotiations through dirty tricks playing with the budgets of federal agencies.
Click here to see a general action alert by the Sierra Club and more reporting on this by the New York Times.
Posted in Coal, Energy, Global Warming | Tagged carbon dioxide emissions, clean air act, Clean Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Global Warming, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Texas |
« Newer Posts - Older Posts »
