Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Energy’ Category

Energia Mia: San Antonio coalition tries to stop expansion of South Texas Project Nuke Boondoggle

Posted in Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on July 24, 2009 |

Dont Nuke The Alamo: Local Power Coalition, opposes new Nuclear Reactors

Dont Nuke The Alamo: Local Power Coalition, opposes new Nuclear Reactors

Don’t Nuke The Alamo!  As we all know, San Antonio’s CPS energy is on the verge of investing in a third and fourth reactor for the South Texas Nuclear project in Bay City. In addition to the environmental and social concerns we have about nuclear power at Public Citizen, we also want to make it known that these reactors are a huge financial gamble. Our best independent studies on the topic show that it will likely be well over budget (possibly 100% over budget) and there is every reason to expect unplanned time delays and hidden costs.

Fortunately the citizens of San Antonio are working to voice their concerns about the project and encourage CPS to reconsider this investment. I recently attended the first meeting of Local Power (or Energía Mia), a coalition of various environmental and social organizations from the San Antonio area, to talk about ways we can voice our concerns about the proposal and get our Mayor and City Council to take action. For anyone interested, the next local power meeting will take place on July 28th at the San Antonio Progress Action Coaltion (SAAPAC) office. Plans were made to target local council members by participating in and producing Public Service Announcements, Forums, District Meetings, Right-wing talk radio interviews and radios ads, and letters to churches and neighborhood associations.

Anyone concerned about these issues is welcome to help and attend any events. SAAPAC head Cindy Wheeler expressed plans for the group to make a concentrated effort to identify the San Antonio residents who will experience a 5% or more rate hike on their electric bills if the reactors are built and help them voice their opposition.

The attendees made plans to attend the CPS Neighbors Night meeting series which will take place all around San Antonio on the designated nights at 6:00pm. At these meetings any interested person can sign up to speak. Here is the schedule for the remaining meetings:

Thursday, July 23 (District 1)
Tripoint Center (YMCA)
3233 N. St. Marys St.

Tuesday, August 4 (District 2)
Freeman Coliseum
3201 E. Houston St.
(Held in Auction Barn. Enter through west gate off W Houston near railroad tracks. Parking available in Lot #9)

Wednesday, August 5 (District 7)
St. Paul’s Community Center
1201 Donaldson

Tuesday, August 25 (District 9)
Alzafar Shrine Temple (Terrace Room)
901 North Loop 1604

Tuesday, September 1 (District 10)
My Father’s House
3131 Nacogdoches Road, Suite 105

Wednesday, September 2 (District 3)
Holy Name Activity Center
6618 Fairlawn

Thursday, July 23 (District 1)
Tripoint Center (YMCA)
3233 N. St. Marys St.

Thursday, July 30 (District 8 )
Firefighters Union Hall
8925 IH-10 West

Tuesday, August 4 (District 2)
Freeman Coliseum
3201 E. Houston St.
(Held in Auction Barn. Enter through west gate off W Houston near railroad tracks. Parking available in Lot #9)

Wednesday, August 5 (District 7)
St. Paul’s Community Center
1201 Donaldson

Tuesday, August 25 (District 9)
Alzafar Shrine Temple (Terrace Room)
901 North Loop 1604

Tuesday, September 1 (District 10)
My Father’s House
3131 Nacogdoches Road, Suite 105

Wednesday, September 2 (District 3)
Holy Name Activity Center
6618 Fairlawn

Tuesday, September 15 (District 4)
Knights of Columbus
5763 Ray Ellison Blvd.

Read Full Post »

Dispelling Green Choice Myths

Posted in Energy, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 23, 2009 |

greenChoiceSince the Austin American Statesman published a couple of articles on the less-than-stellar sales of Austin Energy’s Green Choice program, many media outlets have picked up the story and the takeaway message is something like “liberal Austin finds out the hard way that renewable energy is too expensive”. It’s really regrettable that this message is permeating throughout the country because it’s just not true.

Austin Energy’s sales of the most recent GreenChoice batch have been low, but I hope that folks will understand that the blame lies not with wind energy itself but some serious underlying problems with the rate structure of this program and the way the energy market is regulated in Texas (hint: it isn’t).

The high cost of GreenChoice highlights the failure of the deregulated market. Consumers are now unfairly burdened with the transmission costs to get wind energy from West Texas to the center of the state. Wind has to pay a toll to drive the power transmission highway, but coal, gas, and nuclear get a free ride. Not all utilities charge similar transmission costs, and in many places that would be factored into the simple cost of doing business, but in Austin consumers are asked to foot that bill. Then there’s the fact that coal, gas, and nuclear power currently have priority on the transmission grid.  If the wind can provide 300 MW of energy at a given time and coal can dispatch 300 MW, but there is only room for 400 MW of power to run through the lines, coal gets to move 300 MW and wind can only move 100 MW.

Another problem with Green Choice is that in addition to paying for 100% wind, customers are forced to pay the maintenance and capitol costs to upkeep Austin’s dirty power sources. That just isn’t fair – folks shouldn’t have to pay a premium for clean energy and then be asked to foot the bill for polluters too.  Folks argue that GreenChoice customers should pay a portion of the upkeep for traditional dirty power sources when the wind isn’t blowing, but they shouldn’t pay the same *full* capital and maintenance costs that average customers pay. If anything, GreenChoice customers should be offered a pro-rated charge for those costs, so that they only pay the maintenance costs for when they are actually getting power from those dirty sources. Right now, Austin Energy is asking GreenChoice customers to pay an Equal share of maintenance and upkeep for an Unequal share of power – not fair.

Then there’s the fact that Austin Energy got a bad deal on this contract. They bought into a ten year power purchase agreement when natural gas prices, and energy prices in general, were at an all time high (remember $4/gallon gas?).

Austin Energy could easily restructure this program so that it is more affordable. GreenChoice wouldn’t be so expensive if wind was operating on a level playing field with fossil fuels. Austin Energy can make that happen.

Read Full Post »

Texas Coastal Wind Production

Posted in Energy, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , on July 21, 2009 |

One type of wind that is being developed extensively and contributing to Texas’ renewable generation assets is coastal wind.

In 2009, several new wind projects have been brought online and are continuing to be developed. This was after an extensive, multi-year long study to minimize the risk of environmental impact in the area. Numerous concerns had been raised about migratory bird issues, wetland protection, and interference with any possible endangered species that might be in the area. Good engineering and construction practices by the developers and innovative use of new technologies help bring these generators safely online.

At Babcock & Brown’s wind farm on King Ranch, which we toured this spring, access roads twist and turn like a crazed snake trail through the brush to avoid any interruption of the natural water flow. The wind tower bases were also completely buried to allow normal water flow and a radar system developed for the military to track birds was put in place.

DeTect, Inc is the company that makes the “avian avoidance systems.”  They installed the radar and collected data for over three years to profile the migratory bird habits and further developed the software for this application. The project developers then hooked the radar tracker into the wind farm control system and allows it to shut down the turbines if approaching migrating bird flocks are at risk.

So now we have a new clean, well engineered source of energy in the south part of Texas.

This is important for several reasons.  The transmission problems that have occurred in the north Texas wind areas which require the build out of large amounts of transmission lines (CREZ) is avoided, but more important is the time of day that the wind blows on the coast. In Texas there is a large increase in the consumption of electricity that starts around noon and peaks between 5 and 6 pm. North Texas wind blows mostly at night, but the coastal wind starts going strong around 2 and peaks right at the same time that the demand is the highest. (See geeky chart supplied by Babcock and Brown).

b&b graph

There is still opposition to situating wind farms in the coastal areas and offshore in Texas but it’s an energy resource that matches our use and is too valuable to waste. With good planning and proper site controls and installation, this will be a major factor in Texas’ clean energy future.

Read Full Post »

Austin Energy Wants to Know: Where Should Our Electricity Come From?

Posted in Energy, tagged , , , , , , , , on July 20, 2009 |

Austin-Energy-LogoAustin Energy is holding a Public Advisory Meeting today, Monday 20, at 6 o’clock to discuss the City’s electric generation plan.  This is your opportunity to tell our utility what kind of an energy future you want — smoking, or non-smoking?  Word on the street is that the majority of their planning options so far continue to rely on dirty fossil fuel energy.  If Austin is to be a leader on global warming solutions and environmental stewardship, we’ve got to switch to clean energy and pursue energy efficiency aggressively, now.

But you knew that already.  Join us at the meeting today at 6 pm!

MONDAY – July 20, 2009, 6PM

Town Lake Center

721 Barton Springs Road

The Shudde Fath Conference Room

Read Full Post »

Express News Editorial Gets It, Why Doesn’t CPS?

Posted in Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on July 17, 2009 |

The following editorial from the San Antonio Express News is an excellent take on the issue of the South Texas Project nuclear expansion. Kudos to Carlos Guerra!

Expert offers uniquely Texan power solution

Carlos Guerra – San Antonio Express News

With a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from UC-Berkeley, Arjun Makhijani has followed energy issues and innovations for decades. But with his uncanny understanding of economics, and a willingness to put a pencil to what comes along, when he says something, you listen.

Or, at least, you should.

Makhijani’s most recent book, “Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free” is now a must-read on emerging energy solutions. And last fall, he studied CPS Energy’s plans to participate in the doubling of the South Texas Project.

Among other things, the engineer concluded that the two new reactors would cost more than twice what was projected.

CPS’ latest forecasts now almost echo Makhijani’s.

And Wednesday, he advised CPS to closely re-examine its drive to expand the STP and, especially, its latest twist in the deal: to sell excess electricity on the wholesale market to offset the regular rate increases that would be made necessary to pay for the new reactors.

“Especially in a deep recession, when demand for electricity is going down throughout the country, and nobody has any idea when it will recover,” he said, “for San Antonio to say they are going to sell electricity on the open market at rates that will benefit ratepayers is gambling with public money.”

Makhijani did compliment our utility’s newfound commitment to promoting greater efficiencies and relying more heavily on wind energy. But he also offered alternatives to the pricey investment in nuclear power that he says would be better and safer — economically and environmentally — and yield better results more quickly.

“The combination of efficiency, storage and wind, and concentrating solar thermal energy would be the right mix,” he said. “And the pace at which you do that should depend on the economic circumstances. You shouldn’t be overbuilding anything, not wind, solar or whatever.

“In San Antonio, the first thing to do is to start making money on efficiencies so bills don’t go up for consumers,” he continued.

“That will lay the foundation for a solid electricity sector that will be modern and that can accommodate changes.”

And since CPS leads Texas in its commitment to buying wind energy, it should incorporate storage strategies so it can purchase excess electricity when it is cheapest, and distribute it to augment other electricity sources when demand — and other electricity prices — soar.

The Japanese, Makhijani noted, are already using large industrial sodium-sulfur batteries to do just that with wind energy.

But in Texas, storing energy as compressed air in massive underground caverns — as is done with natural gas — might make more sense. And it is a proven technology.

Then, when energy demand peaks, the compressed air is heated with small amounts of natural gas and used to drive turbines to generate electricity that can help meet the peak-load demands.

When you think about it, that would be a perfectly Texan solution. When temperatures soar and air conditioners are cranked up, we could solve our peak demand problems with natural gas and a lot of hot air.

Read Full Post »

The History of Wind Power in Texas

Posted in Energy, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , on July 16, 2009 |

The booming wind energy industry in Texas didn’t just pop up over night — it was a result of years of research, advocacy, and policy work.  Ever wondered how it all happened?  Smitty, the director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office, has a story to tell — check it out!

[vimeo 5616775]

Seeing as we are just at the beginning of the history of wind, it is a story that is constantly evolving.  Coastal wind projects have been developed in Texas recently (look for a post on this very topic soon!).  Just this week, the Abilene Reporter News ran an article about a local professor and director of the Wind Science and Engineering Research Center at Texas Tech that testified on a bill in Congress that would pump $200 million annually into research and development for wind power.  While wind is of course a viable industry in its current stages, further R&D will allow it to provide an even larger portion of our total electricity needs, operate more efficiently, and be an even cheaper and more reliable form of energy.

While you’re at it, check out this recent article from the Guardian about the “furious search for practical, affordable electricity storage” so that excess energy produced when the wind is blowing but no one’s lights are on can be socked away and used when we need it most.

Read Full Post »

Electric Rate Discount for Low-Income Users Now Even Lower

Posted in Energy, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on July 15, 2009 |

Good news for the safety, comfort and health of Texans — the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) announced this morning that they would increase their special discount for low-income electricity users during these hot summer months.

Proof, via the trusted Associated Press:

PUC officials say discounts for low-income electricity users are being increased through Aug. 1 to about three cents per kilowatt hour. A PUC statement issued Wednesday says that means a rate cut of 17 to 30 percent.

Consumers can get immediate pricing information by phone at 866-797-4839 or on the Internet at http://www.powertochoose.org. LITE-UP Texas Program applications for low-income consumers are available at 866-454-8387 or 877-399-8939.

Anyone who lives in a competitive electric service market (that is, you have multiple electric providers to choose from — unlike Austin and San Antonio which are served by municipally owned utilities) and receives Medicaid and Food stamps is eligible.  If you aren’t in either of those programs, you might still qualify if your household income comes in at or below that in the following chart.chart

For more information on the discount program, or to enroll, visit the PUC’s LITE-UP Texas website.

The PUC should be commended for this most recent action to protect Texas’ most vulnerable from scorching summer heat… but I can’t help but wonder if it has anything to do with the tongue-lashing they received from Sylvester Turner at their last open meeting.  Whatever the motivation (or kick in the pants), the PUC has done a good thing… tip of the hat to you, sirs.

Read Full Post »

South Texas Nuclear Project: The Early Years

Posted in Consumers, Efficiency, Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on July 10, 2009 |

After CPS Energy unveiled its optimistically low $13 billion proposal for South Texas Project reactors three and four, I decided to look into the history of the construction of the first two reactors. What I found was troubling, but it seemed to be pretty much in line with my understanding of problems with nuclear projects during the 70s and 80. Here is a brief time line:

1971: Houston Lighting and Power presents proposal for South Texas Nuclear Project, with an estimated cost of 1 billion dollars for the entire project.

1973: Construction begins, with contractor Brown and Root. A $1 billion cost is agreed upon and the first reactor is projected to be finished by 1980 and the second by 1982.

1979: Brown and Root Inspector Dan Swayze gives interview with CBS Magazine, discussing his decision to stop inspecting concrete pours after a 1977 incident at STP in which concrete workers at STP threatened his life and physically assaulted another inspector. “They beat the hell out of him” -Swayze

1979: Estimated costs rise to $2.7 Billion and completion of the reactors is postponed

to 1984 for the first and 1986 for the second.

1979: Three Mile Island accident. San Antonio reevaluates its role in the project.

1980: After 3,000 complaints reports of work deficiencies, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issues a report citing 22 violations and fines HL&P $100,000 and issues a “show cause order” requiring the company to explain why the project should be allowed to continue.

1980: HL&P voluntarily stops work after problems are discovered in the welding and concrete. The projected is rated below average by Ralph Nader’s Critical Mass Energy Project. It is ranked among the top 4 worst ongoing projects.

1981: HL&P fires original contractor Brown and Root (who had no previous experience with nuclear reactors) and replaces them with Bechtel Corporation. Estimated completion costs increase to $4.5 billion.

1985: Brown and Root looses a $750 million law suit, filed by Houston Lighting & Power, San Antonio City Public Service, Central Power, Light of Corpus Christi and the city of Austin. At the time this was the largest cash legal settlement in U.S History.

1987: HL&P receives low-power operating license for Unit 1 nuclear reactor.

1988: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducts last minute inspection of facility after hundreds of allegations of poor construction, over 50 of which were made by plant workers through the Government Accountability Project. Among the allegations was a claim that roughly 20% of the plant’s safety valves were installed backwards. This was never corrected after it was concluded that the plant could still function with backwards safety valves.

1988: Completion is announced 7 years late and 500% over budget.

1989: City of Austin files lawsuit against Houston Lighting and Power for unexpected expenses and delays during the construction of STP. Texas Court in Dallas Rules in HL&P’s Favor.

Since 1990: STP and other nuclear plants spend an average of $45 million each year disposing of waste. To clarify that is average is per plant.

CPS energy is giving an optimistically low estimate of the total cost of the project.  Estimates that consider the cost overruns and construction delays that plagued STP and similar projects last time  peg the plant at no lower than $17 billion. This look at STP’s history provides a good example of what can happen when we don’t recognize the likely additional expenditures an expensive project like this will have and operate on an unrealistic time frame.  San Antonio is on the verge of repeating many of the mistakes of the past, and it is the citizens that will have to pay.

The Disappointed Environmentalist

Read Full Post »

A Look at Uranium Mining

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, Toxics, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 8, 2009 |

An Open Pit Uranium Mine

An Open Pit Uranium Mine

Proponents of nuclear power do a lot to paint it as an environmentally friendly, cheap fuel source. It is not, and we at Public Citizen work hard to dispel these kinds of myths. We have said a lot about how expensive a major nuclear undertaking can be (San Antonio is on verge of dumping several billion dollars into one of these projects) and how they emit radiation into the air and produce radioactive waste that hangs around for thousands of years and can be a huge contamination risk. None of this gets much attention in mainstream discourse, so it is up to concerned citizens like us to shed light on these things.

There is one destructive aspect of nuclear power that public discourse tends to be especially silent on. Just as coal industry apologists brush over the enormous damage caused by coal mining, any discussion of nuclear is power is likely to be silent on the damage done by uranium mining.

The damage to human health associated with uranium mining is huge. Historically, uranium miners have had a significantly higher risks of developing small cell Carcinoma, which is a likely product of their exposure to Radon-222 — a cancer causing agent created by decaying uranium. The presence of Radon gas also makes uranium mines a very dangerous work environment. This led to the 1990 passage of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), which awards $100,000 to miners, millers, and transporters who subsequently got cancer after exposure to uranium — though families of many of the victims have had difficulty receiving this money (many cancer stricken miners were Navajo, and their marriage licenses were not universally recognized).

Last year the French mining company Areva was nominated for a Public Eye Award (a recognition intended for companies who brought about the most social or ecological damage) by Pro Natura (Switzerland’s branch of Friends of The Earth), and the Berne Declaration development campaign. The nomination came from the company’s perceived failure to adequately disclose the risks associated with uranium mining to its workers in Niger, as well as neglecting to treat patients who are unable to pay at company hospitals. Workers also mentioned deaths caused by radioactive contamination of air and ground water.

Aside from the dangers of uranium exposure, mining projects  also cause considerable damage to the local environments and to the health of people who live nearby. The American Southwest is covered with abandoned uranium mines from the Cold War Era that have yet to be cleaned up, not to mention waste piles, open tunnels, and pits — all of which emit cancer causing radiation and leach arsenic and heavy metals into the soil and drinking water. Oddly enough, much of this radioactive debris eventually came to be used as building material for local houses. It is likely that exposure to this material is at least partially responsible for the increased cancer rates among Navajos (from almost non-existent) to well above the national-average by the end of the cold war.

Currently all uranium mining done in the United States is in the form of in-situ leaching, a process in which boreholes are drilled into a deposit, it is filled with an acid or alkali, and the dissolved ore content is pumped to the surface for recovery. It is a controversial process, often objected to by local land owners, because it acidifies ground waters and can release toxic heavy-metals as well as radioactive materials. There have also been concerns about spillage of acid leachates into the soil or water supplies. In other parts of the world, open pit mines and underground mines are still used, which continue to expose workers to danger, damage the local landscapes, and create waste heaps of toxic and radioactive waste rock.

There are a lot of hidden expenses and environmental as well as human health problems with nuclear power, despite claims that it is a “clean”  fuel source. I think we need to be a lot more skeptical and a lot more forward in our rejections of these claims. I also think that the dangers of uranium mining give us another reason to support new clean energy sources like wind and solar power.

The Disappointed Environmentalist

Read Full Post »

South Texas Project Nuclear Reactors Too Expensive, CPS Cost Estimate Overly Optimistic

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 7, 2009 |

Last week San Antonio’s CPS released their cost estimate for the proposed South Texas Project Nuclear Expansion, and we found their numbers naive optimistic ignored history wanting.  To find out why, check out this Guest Column, printed in today’s San Antonio Express-News, from Public Citizen’s own Energy Policy Analyst Matthew Johnson.

Matthew Johnson: Why not cheaper, safer sources of energy?

Matthew Johnson: Why not cheaper, safer sources of energy?

Nuclear reactors too expensive

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.

Read Full Post »

Governor’s office: Lock up the Opposition

Posted in Energy, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 6, 2009 |

While attending the Austin CleanTX foundation panel to hear their take on a post-legislative wrap-up, we overheard Governor Perry’s energy advisor Brian Lloyd say the following:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGZIr_cYz1A]

Ouch!! While I don’t think Mr. Lloyd literally supports imprisoning his political adversaries and their supporters, it is somewhat surreal to hear one of our public figures suggesting it. I’ve been told that people often express their true feelings when they are joking, especially when they are not comfortable saying these things in any other context. No matter how you look at it, it is a little troubling that the Governor’s Advisor would suggest that we lock up people who disagree with him.

Mr. Lloyd’s quip was offered as an explanation for the failure of certain Solar Bills this session, but of course the real culprit here was the voter ID bill introduced by the conservative wing of the Republican party in both houses. This created a lot of partisan heat but no light as it killed not only legislation that would have promoted solar energy here in Texas, but also the Sunset safety bill (for which a special session was held last week). This exchange shows that Mr. Lloyd dismisses those of us who are concerned about the environment as minor irritants and our concerns as ill-conceived.  I hope he will note that while he does dismiss our concerns, we our numerous and we can influence policy.

Read Full Post »

Flat-Earth View of Climate Change Will Send Texas Back to the Energy Dark Ages

Posted in Efficiency, Energy, Global Warming, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , on July 1, 2009 |

By: Citizen Brem

rick-perryEven though Texas leads the nation in greenhouse gas emissions, Governor Perry balks at making any major stand on producing reliable renewable energy.

“Are the Democrats willing to say we’re fixing to raise everyone’s cost of living in America, on science yet to be solidified?” said Rick Perry several weeks ago.  Perry has vowed to veto any legislation with the phrase, “Global Warming” present in bill, while Republican members in Congress continue to protect the oil industry.

It is important to understand the rhetoric being proposed by representatives such as Perry.  They are siding with big oil and manufacturing lobbyists; who argue renewable energy would increase electric bills.  However, the latest studies have shown renewable energy and energy efficiency can dramatically decrease energy consumption.  This decrease in electric bills will be especially helpful for low-income families, who could save up to 30% on future electric bills.

Rick Perry claims, “renewable energy would be devastating to Texas economy,” but research indicates otherwise.  A recent study done by the University of Massachusetts has declared renewable energy and energy efficiency programs would, “save low-income families 4% for their annual income, and the programs would pay for themselves in three years due to the savings by each family.”

Global warming is a real, scientifically confirmed problem, despite what governor Perry would like to believe — and our best answer to this global problem is renewable energy and energy efficiency programs.  Renewable energy and energy efficiency programs have been dramatically effective in Europe and other states through the United States. It is time to examine these successes and find an energy solution right for Texas.

Explained in a report by Green for All, “The most powerful way in which clean-energy investments will expand economic opportunities is through the channel of job creation, especially by increasing the availability of jobs for people with relatively low formal credentials.”

The renewable energy industry can provide thousands of jobs for Texans, which should be welcomed during a time of economic uncertainty.  However, we need to invest in the future of renewable energy before it is too late.  The renewable energy market, from research to production, is a prime opportunity for economic development in Texas.  We must not let Texas be out-competed by states such as California and Vermont, which is sure to happen if Texas does not chose to invest in renewable technology.

Governor Perry’s claim renewable energy will hurt the Texas economy is completely off base.  With renewable energy proving to be a reliable and affordable alternative for energy production, now and in the future, it is time we make active steps towards developing renewable energy in Texas.

Read Full Post »

Public Citizen Applauds Leadership, Vision of New PEC Board

Posted in Energy, Good Government, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 30, 2009 |

Board Promises Transparency, Whistleblower Protections, Open Meetings

AUSTIN, Texas – The first meeting of the new board of the Pedernales Electric Cooperative (PEC) on Monday marked an unprecedented change in leadership and vision for the nation’s largest electric cooperative. Not only is the majority of the board progressive reformers, but it is led by an entirely new executive body that has promised to prioritize transparency, accountability, whistleblower protection, renewable energy and energy efficiency new priorities.

“The PEC has an opportunity to be a national leader among co-ops. Board members see that the future of electric power in America lies with energy efficiency and renewable energy,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office. “Public Citizen Texas applauds the board’s openness and commitment to member rights and looks forward to working with directors in the future as they further investigate how to make their visions reality.”

Considering that just last year the co-op was deep in the midst of a scandal involving accusations of misappropriated funds, theft, money laundering, closed meetings and tainted elections, Monday’s meeting marked an incredible turnaround.

PEC held a special meeting Monday to seat newly elected board directors Christi Clement, Patrick Cox and Larry Landacker. During this meeting, the full board held the elections for the positions of president, vice president and secretary for the coming year.

Landacker was nominated for president and elected with six votes in favor and one abstention;  Clements secured the vice presidency with four votes in favor and three abstentions, and Kathy Scanlon was unanimously elected to the position of board secretary.

During his acceptance speech, Landacker announced that the board would begin working immediately on several projects to reform the co-op and move toward becoming a more environmentally friendly, sustainable business. Landacker plans to adopt a co-op members’ Bill of Rights, guarantee open access to meetings, implement a new whistleblower protection policy and create a new and open governance system for the co-op. These laudable measures will ensure that members have the opportunity to participate fully in their co-op and in decisions, and that workers are encouraged to act in the best interests of member-owners.

Landacker also pledged to move forward aggressively with the co-op’s goal, set last November, to purchase or generate 30 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020. As a part of this effort, the co-op plans to create new programs to encourage energy efficiency and renewable energy projects among individual members.

Read Full Post »

CPS’ Reactor Cost Estimate Naïve; Ignores History and Independent Reports

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 29, 2009 |

Statement of Tom “Smitty” Smith, Director, Public Citizen’s Texas Office

CPS Energy’s announcement today that it will cost $13 billion to build two new nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project (STP) is a naïve guess when compared to independent assessments that offer more realistic estimates for financing and construction. San Antonio already has spent nearly $300 million just for an accounting of this project’s potential cost, but it appears that even that amount could not buy the city an accurate study.

Former Office of Public Utility Counsel Director Clarence Johnson and nuclear engineer and president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Arjun Makhijani have estimated that costs will range from $17.5 billion to $22 billion.

Even Wall Street underwriters are pinning new reactors at a cost closer to what Johnson and Makhijani have estimated. Wall Street realizes the true potential cost and risk of nuclear power – which is why they refuse to invest in STP unless it is able to secure federally guaranteed loans. That way, if the project goes under or the costs balloon out of control, the only investors who will lose a significant amount of money are the American taxpayers.

Estimates like the one CPS made today are non-binding. If the reactors cost more than CPS has estimated, San Antonio taxpayers will pay the difference. If NRG Energy is unable to provide a fixed contract for this deal, CPS and San Antonio should ask why.

The City Council can stop all this madness and save San Antonio from a bad deal that will pass costs onto ratepayers for decades to come. Council members have questioned the project in the past and have expressed skepticism. The unfortunate truth is that there will be no way to know how much the expansion will cost until the plant is online.  No one knows how much new reactors will ultimately cost to build, finance and operate.

City Council members have shown support for investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy. They have shown incredible vision supporting the Mission Verde plan to develop 250 megawatts of solar and new wind contracts. Just this May, the City Council voted to allow CPS to fund energy efficiency efforts, known as the Save for Tomorrow Energy Program. These are the sorts of measures that San Antonio should be supporting – measures that can be deployed quicker and at a fraction of the cost of nuclear expansion.

Now is the time for the City Council to bring common sense and practicality back to the table. San Antonio can’t afford another nuclear boondoggle; the City Council has the opportunity to say “no” to these new nuclear investments. Only it can protect San Antonians from bearing the overwhelming economic burden of building costly, dangerous and unnecessary nuclear reactors.

Read Full Post »

Hot Texas Summer Leads to Record Energy Consumption

Posted in Energy, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 24, 2009 |

HEAT_WAVE_072605Just four days into summer, and we’re already are setting records for energy consumption in Texas.  Yesterday Reuters reported that the Texas grid had set a new record for peak energy consumption in the month of June.  With temperatures already in the 100s in our largest urban ares, thermostats are cranking across the state, and energy bills are going up.

Texas consumers used 60, 452 MW of energy in the hour ending at 5 o’clock yesterday, blowing last year’s June record of 59,642 MW out of the water.

But today ERCOT is predicting that Texas will set a new record for electricity consumption.  Period.  By about five o’clock this afternoon, the time of day when the the sun is shining brightest and A/Cs run hardest, Texas will be consuming more energy at one time than we ever have in our history.

According to the Ft. Worth Star Telegram,

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which oversees the power grid that serves about 22 million Texans, forecasts that power demand will peak today at 62,450 megawatts and at 63,589 megawatts Thursday. The record is 62,339 megawatts, set Aug. 17, 2006, ERCOT spokeswoman Dottie Roark said.

If we’re reaching record energy use this early in June, I don’t even want to think about how bad its going to get in July and the dreaded August.  Global warming, indeed.  Don’t say we didn’t tell you so.

But no need to worry about outages, ERCOT says.  The grid has more than 72,700 megawatts of available generation capacity, plenty to serve on even the hottest days.

So wait a minute.  If we have 10,000 MW of extra power lying around, why is Texas rushing to build 12 new coal plants to provide tons of baseload power?  Judging by this recent run of records, looks like what we really need is *peak power.

Not sure of the difference?  An aside for the uninitiated.  There are two main classifications of power that run our modern lives: baseload, and peak.  Baseload is steady amount of power we need under normal circumstances (because as a society we’re always doing something that requires energy), and peak is the extra energy we need when we are all doing something at the same time.  Think about baseload and peak power as you would about keeping your body hydrated.  We always need to be drinking a certain amount of water to stay healthy and functioning (baseload aqua), but when we are working out or being active outside, need even more on top of that (peak gatorade).

Baseload power is largely provided by the old dirty standbys — coal and nuclear (unless you’re in Houston, in which case it is gas in abundance, baby — one of the reasons power in H-town is so expensive).  Baseload is the huge, slow, steady sort of power — the kind we have plenty of.

In Texas, peak power is generally produced by gas turbines.  When it starts to reach that key hot afternoon time, your energy provider flips the switch to turn on a quick revving gas turbine to turbo charge the grid with enough power to keep all those fans spinning and air conditioners blowing.

Another source of peak power, though less common currently, is of course solar power.  Solar produces peak power because just as the day gets hottest, and we need power to keep us cool the most — the sun is shining brightest!  Match made in heaven, really — solar and the need for peak energy.

So why  is Texas trying to build 8500 MW + 9149#of coal MW of additional baseload power from coal and nuclear plants when what we really need is peak power, and solar is such a natural fit to produce peak energy?

Good question.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »