KSAT.com is conducting an online poll on nuclear power. Please take a
minute or two to vote NO on nuclear for San Antonio. This is anonymous –
you don’t have to identify yourself.
Archive for the ‘Nuclear’ Category
Vote No to Nuclear on KSAT’s web poll
Posted in Nuclear, tagged KSAT, ksat webpoll, no to nuclear, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, Public Citizen, San Antonio, South Texas Project, Texas, web poll on September 2, 2009 |
Citizens Win Right to a Hearing in Opposing South Texas Project Nuclear Reactors
Posted in Nuclear, tagged atomic safety and licensing board, department of agriculture, energy security, environmental report, Global Warming, Karen Hadden, livestock, matagorda county, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, Public Citizen, radioactive waste, robert v. eye, safety, san antonio water system, saws, SEED Coalition, south texas association for responsible energy, South Texas Project, susan dancer, Texas, toxic discharge, tritium on August 28, 2009 |
UPDATE: Safety panel hearing in the news: at the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express News
Citizen opposition to two proposed nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project continues with another success. On August 27th the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) Panel found that the nuclear applicant, South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC), had failed to adequately analyze issues raised by concerned citizens in their Petition to Intervene in the proposed expansion at STP.
“This is a major victory for those living in the South Texas Project region and throughout Texas,” said Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the SEED Coalition. “The decision recognizes that the South Texas Project reactor application is still inadequate, two years after it was submitted. We now have a case against the reactors that will move forward.”
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. The ASLB Panel has ruled on 19 of the 28 contentions submitted and found that one of the contentions deserved further inquiry, giving Intervenors a case against the reactors. It is not known when a decision will be made on the remaining contentions.
“South Texas Project’s reactor application is seriously flawed.” said Mr. Eye. “They failed to analyze how a severe radiological accident or a major fire or explosion at any of the four units would impact the other remaining units at the site. This is a major omission and the issue should have been considered by STP.” The contention reads:
Contention 21 – Impacts from severe radiological accident scenarios on the operation of other units at the STP site have not been considered in the Environmental Report.
“A radiological accident at one unit could cause impacts and disruptions in operations at the other units,” said one of the Intervenors, Bill Wagner, a former STP Operations Supervisor. “How would operations at undamaged units continue in the event that the entire site becomes seriously contaminated? STP needs to address this.”
Water Issues Are Yet to be Decided
The ASLB panel delayed a decision on all nine of the Intervenors’ contentions that deal with water issues. The issues yet to be ruled on include: the build-up of radioactive particulate in STP’s Main Cooling Reservoir (MCR), increasing levels of groundwater tritium, the vulnerability of the MCR to flooding, insufficient limits on toxic discharges, reliance on dilution to achieve discharge standards, unregulated wastewater discharge, unevaluated reduction in groundwater supply for adjacent landowners, unevaluated reduction in surface water flow, and inadequate supplies of fresh water due to global warming impacts.
“Nuclear plants consume enormous amounts of water and are vulnerable to shutdown during drought and reduced river flows. The two proposed reactors would use over 23,000 gallons of water every minute.This is a real one-two punch. Not only would STP’s operations reduce water supplies for cities like Austin or San Antonio, but the plant might not even be able to operate if the Lower Colorado River has severely reduced flows from drought,” said Hadden. “These problems don’t exist for wind, solar and geothermal sources to generate electricity.”
“The current water shortages in our area are hitting us hard,” said Susan Dancer, a local wildlife rehabilitator and Chair of South Texas Association for Responsible Energy. “Livestock suffer since hay and other feedstuffs are in incredibly short supply and there is no grass left. We have personally spent over $5000 this summer having hay trucked in from other areas on semis and have gone deep into debt trying to keep the livestock fed and healthy. Everyone here is in the same situation, so selling off stock is not an option. Prices are at all-time lows due to the large number of producers who are dumping stock at the markets already.”
“Texas is in a Stage 4 drought and has been declared a disaster area. The Texas Department of Agriculture says there are no programs available to assist us,” said Dancer. “Granting more water to industry, especially nuclear reactors that consume vast quantities of water, is not an option. This drought and others to come may be even worse.”
When it comes to water, San Antonio and Central Texas citizens are feeling the pain as well. On Monday, the San Antonio Water System filed suit for breach of contract against the Lower Colorado River Authority for $1.23 billion. The suit claims that the water-sharing project was killed by the river authority to make sure there would be enough water for power plant deals in Matagorda County. At the same time CPS Energy, the San Antonio municipal utility, seeks to be a partner in the proposed nuclear reactors for Matagorda County. Will San Antonio have to decide which matters most, electricity from nuclear reactors or water for drinking?
Large Fires and Explosions that Cause Loss of Coolant and Meltdown
On August 14th, the Intervenors filed seven more contentions regarding STP’s failure to comply with a new NRC fire safety rule which says each licensee must “develop and implement guidance and strategies intended to maintain or restore core cooling, containment, and spent fuel pool cooling capabilities under the circumstances associated with loss of large areas of the plant due to explosions or fire.” The NRC now requires nuclear plants to deal with explosions and fires that would occur from the impact of a large commercial airliner. STP claims that their submittal brings them in accordance with the new NRC rule. Intervenors and their expert argue the opposite in the contentions. However, the Intervenors’ contentions that argue STP has failed to meet the fire and explosion regulatory requirements, STP’s submittal, and related documents are considered classified by the NRC and are not available to the public.
The NRC has also recently adopted regulations that require all applicants for new reactor licenses, including STP, to complete “a design-specific assessment of the effects of the impact of a large, commercial aircraft.” After 9/11 the NRC did its own assessments of aircraft impacts using state-of-the-art techniques and “realistic predictions of accident progression and radiological consequences.” “This regulation recognizes that nuclear plants are vulnerable to air attacks with potentially catastrophic effects,” said Hadden. “Nuclear plants could become weapons if targeted by those who would do us harm.”
The full order can be viewed online at www.NukeFreeTexas.org.
San Antonio Nuclear Showdown TONIGHT
Posted in Nuclear, tagged clean technology forum, CPS Energy, facebook, julian castro, kstx, lanny sinkin, michael kotara, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, Public Citizen, public radio, San Antonio, san antonio town hall, solar san antonio, South Texas Project, STP, terry gildea, Texas, texas public radio, Tom "Smitty" Smith, Twitter on August 26, 2009 |
UPDATE: The streaming audio from last night’s event was, unfortunately, very hard to listen to — but folks who weren’t willing to wade through the feedback can watch our video of the town hall in its entirety, which we should be able to post in the next couple days 🙂
Tonight KSTX will host a Town Hall on Energy in San Antonio to provide the forum we’ve all been waiting for — an honest and open debate of whether or not SA should invest in two new nuclear reactors and the safe, clean alternatives that SA can choose to meet its future energy needs.
The Clean Technology Forum will provide an opportunity for a similar opportunity for this discussion — but at $50 a pop, only the most well-heeled San Antonians will be able to attend. KSTX’s Town Hall, by contrast, will be free and open to the public. Folks who would like to attend in person should plan on being at the McAllister Auditorium at San Antonio College (SAC) from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm — but if you can’t make it, never fear. KSTX will be streaming the conversation live from their website www.tpr.org, as well as carrying the town hall on the radio at 89.1 FM. You can also submit your question on Facebook or Twitter — three cheers for interactivity!
Should be a good show — maybe even a bit of a sparring match, judging by the panelists. In one corner we’ve got: Michael Kotara, Executive Vice President for Energy Development, CPS Energy and Mayor Julián Castro, who supports the nuclear option even though he would rather San Antonio own 20% rather than 40% of the new reactors. In the other, Lanny Sinkin, Executive Director, Solar San Antonio and co-founder of Citizens Against Nuclear Power and Public Citizen’s own Tom “Smitty” Smith, whitehat extraordinaire and lifelong agitator of the nuclear bad guys (because, as Smitty likes to repeat “you’ve got to agitate to get the dirt out“).
Texas Vox will be on hand to videotape the town hall, and you can follow our tweets live from @publiccitizentx. Be sure to look for a follow up blog post and video in the next couple days!
Our regular readers already know how we feel about the issue at Public Citizen: San Antonio citizens can’t afford the huge 50% rate hikes that would result from involvement in the proposed nukes at South Texas Project. The billions that San Antonio would sink into the nuclear money pit should instead be spent in San Antonio, creating local jobs in energy efficiency, retrofitting homes and businesses, and developing clean renewable energy technologies including solar, wind and geothermal power.
Hope you can make it out to the event, listen in, or follow up on our post and videos tomorrow! Look for event details and panelist bios after the jump.
Citizens Groups Win Right to a Hearing for Comanche Peak Intervention
Posted in Nuclear, tagged alternative energy, atomic safety and licen, atomic safety and licensing board, bob eye, comanche peak, Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Karen Hadden, Luminant, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SEED Coalition, solar, Texas, Texas Representative Lon Burnam, true cost of nukes, wind on August 22, 2009 |
Citizen opposition to more nuclear reactors at Comanche Peak continues. On August 6th the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) Panel found that Luminant had failed to adequately analyze issues brought by concerned citizens in their Petition to Intervene in the proposed expansion at Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant.
“This is a major victory for those living near Comanche Peak and throughout Texas,” says Karen Hadden, Executive Director of Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. “The ASLB Panel has recognized in their decision that Luminant has not sufficiently analyzed alternatives to nuclear power as the law requires.”
The Comanche Peak Interveners (formerly referred to as Petitioners) include SEED Coalition, Public Citizen, Ft. Worth-based True Cost of Nukes and Texas Representative Lon Burnam, District 90, Ft. Worth. On June 10th-11th, the Interveners’ attorney, Robert V. Eye, went before the designated ASLB Panel and argued the admissibility of the 19 contentions filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on April 6th challenging the adequacy of Luminant’s application to construct and operate Comanche Peak Units 3 and 4. Four months later, the ASLB Panel found that two of the contentions deserved further inquiry and delayed a decision on the Interveners’ contention dealing with the Luminant’s lack of plans to deal with catastrophic fires and/or explosions.
“The Environmental Report in Luminant’s application is seriously flawed,” says Mr. Eye. “The collocation of Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2 and the proposed Units 3 and 4 is never considered in light of various accident and radiological release scenarios. A radiological accident at one unit could cause collateral impacts and disruptions in operations at the other units, and Luminant should have considered this.”
The contentions admitted for further adjudication in the August 6th ASLB decision are as follows:
Contention 13. Impacts from a severe radiological accident at any one unit on operation of other units at the Comanche Peak site have not been, and should be, considered in the Environmental Report.
Contention 18. The Comanche Peak Environmental Report is inadequate because it fails to include consideration of alternatives to the proposed Comanche Peak Units 3 and 4, consisting of combinations of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, with technological advances in storage methods and supplemental use of natural gas, to create baseload power.
San Antonio Mayor’s Nuclear Town Hall Tonight
Posted in Nuclear, tagged City Council, city public service, Consumer Energy Coalition, COPS/METRO, CPS, Energia Mia, mayor julian castro, Nuclear Power, nuclear renaissance, Nuclear Town Hall Tonight Tonight, public citizen texas, San Antonio, SEED Coalition, Sierra Club, South Texas Project, STP, Texas, town hall on August 10, 2009 |
Tonight, August 10, is Mayor Castro’s Town Hall Meeting, where he wants to allow the community to tell city council and himself what they think about going the nuclear route. This is so important to attend. It will be at the City Council Chambers downtown where Flores and Commerce meet (map below).
Sign-up to speak is 5:00-6:00 pm, meeting is 6:00-9:00 pm. Castro has already burst CPS’ bubble by saying he does not want to be a 40% owner in the project — he would prefer a 20% share. It is highly likely that the mayor has made this compromise in response to citizen’s protest.
But local activists are saying (and I would agree) that any nuclear is too much. Even if San Antonio only goes with 20%, the environmental damage will be done, the water will be stressed, and the national “nuclear renaissance” will have begun. It still doesn’t make economic sense for SA, will bring no jobs here, and wastes city resources that could go to energy solutions which are lighter on the environment.
Energía Mía‘s message is, “We don’t want any part of nuclear for San Antonio; we don’t want 40%, we don’t want 20%, we don’t want any percent. If the project’s a bad one at 50%, it’s still a bad one at 20%. It’s just 30% less bad.”
Plus, if San Antonio only buys in at 20%, who are they going to get to cover the rest of the project? Everyone knows how risky this investment is — that’s why Austin took a look at the numbers and said: No, thank you. NRG certainly can’t foot the bill for this themselves — especially not with “junk” bond ratings!
Various community groups have entered their questions in advance and will have an opportunity to respond to CPS’ answers. Tonight the mayor will hear from: Sierra Club, Public Citizen Texas, SEED Coalition, Consumer Energy Coalition, COPS/METRO, members of the business community, and the Hispanic, Chinese, and Greater San Antonio Chambers of Commerce. Each city council person will also have a chance to ask a question, and the public will have a short period of time at the meeting’s close to make a short statement.
New Anti-Nuclear Group, Energía Mía, Putting Heat on CPS
Posted in Nuclear, tagged cindy weehler, CPS, Energia Mia, green pary, julian casto, nuclear energy, nuclear reactors, Public Citizen, San Antonio, san antonio area progressive action coalitioin, san antonio express news, SEED Coalition, Sierra Club, South Texas Project, southwest workers union, STP, Texas, texas drought project on August 6, 2009 |
As many of you already know, the nuclear battle is getting pretty heated in San Antonio these days. That’s why a new citizen’s group, Energía Mía, has recently formed. But they can tell you their intentions better than I can:
Citizens are uniting in efforts to halt CPS’ spending for more nuclear reactors. Speakers from many diverse organizations and businesses relayed their concerns about nuclear power as part of the newly formed Energia Mia network and are working to increase visibility and awareness of the problems of nuclear power.
“Energía Mía urges all citizens in San Antonio to get involved now and contact the mayor and city council. The rate hikes that would come from more nuclear power are unacceptable. They would create a severe economic hardship on many people and local businesses” said Cindy Weehler. “We have set up a new web site, www.EnergiaMia.org to provide information to the public and let people know how to get involved.”
According to the San Antonio Express-News, their membership includes representatives from
…the Southwest Workers Union, Project Verde, Alamo Group of the Sierra Club, Highland Hills Neighborhood Association, Jefferson Heights Neighborhood Association, Texas Drought Project, Green Party and the San Antonio Area Progressive Action Coalition.
Alongside fundamental concerns about water, security, radioactive waste, and health and safety risks, the group is concerned about the financial effect the project could have on the city and the rate hikes that CPS has said will accompany STP’s expansion. CPS has already said that 5-8% rate hikes will be needed every two years for the next ten years to pay for this project, and that electric rates could increase nearly 50% as a result.
The good news is that all the noise these activists are making is starting to have an impact. Already, Mayor Julian Castro is having doubts. And apparently, “at every public meeting, city and CPS officials have run into a buzz saw of objections from ratepayers and business owners concerned about higher energy costs.” Some folks are even calling for a referendum on the issue — or at the very least, an honest debate and presentation of viable alternatives (that won’t cost $100 dollars a head).
Way to rouse that rabble, San Antonio. You deserve answers, and for your concerns to be heard in a meaningful way. If you agree with these folks (and if you’re a regular reader I bet you do!), sign their petition!
Austin Energy Wants to Know: What kind of an energy future do you want?
Posted in Coal, Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, Renewables, tagged Austin Energy, austinites, city coucil, city of austin, Coal, Efficiency, fayette, generation plan, lcra, natural gas, Nuclear, powersmack, Public Citizen, shut down fayette, solar, survey, Texas, wind on August 5, 2009 |
Austin Energy will make a recommendation to City Council in August of their future generation plan through 2020. According to their website, “an important component of the planning process is input from the community” — but as of April, only about 300 people had filled out Austin Energy’s survey. Through the survey, you can give Austin Energy a quick gut reaction of what kind of an energy future you want: one with more coal and nuclear (boooo, hisssss, cough cough cough), or a non-smoking future fueled by renewable energy and efficiency (cheers, jubilation!). We need as many Austinites as possible to fill out this survey and send the message loud and clear: say goodbye to our dirty energy past and look to a brighter energy future!
For a quick background on Austin’s current energy mix, check out the following video from our friends at PowerSmack:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqYd_AIpH8o&feature=player_profilepage]
According to Austin Energy’s survey, Austinites get about a third each of their power from coal, nuclear, and natural gas, and about 10% from renewables. Looking at their draft generation plan, they are looking to change that mix to 26% from coal and nuclear power, 44% from natural gas, 5% from biomass, 22% from wind, and 3% from solar by 2020.
That plan may be an improvement from what we’ve got now, but it doesn’t show near the vision and leadership that Austin Energy ought to provide. Imagine what kind of a message it would send if Austin Energy actually tried to divest itself completely from coal — and shut down the Fayette Coal Plant!
That’s right folks, Austin — that Central Texas shining star of wierdness, environmental stewardship, and progressive politics — has a dirty secret. We own half of a coal plant, along with LCRA. And 16% of the South Texas Nuclear Project!
GHASP! Skeletons in the closet.
Ghasp indeed — and skeletons in the closet for real. We all know how bad coal is, and the Fayette plant is spewing toxic emissions into the air every day on our behalf. A total of 44 people die early deaths as a result of these emissions every year.
But Austin Energy’s expected proposals don’t put a priority on shutting down Fayette. That’s why, along with our friends at PowerSmack, we’re launching a new campaign to try to convice Austin Energy and the City Council to shut down Fayette. Don’t sell it — don’t pawn those emissions off on someone else. Shut. It. Down.
James Hansen, one of the top climate scientists and greatest climate change advocates of our time, has said that the number one thing we can do to stop global warming is to stop using coal. Better, cleaner alternatives exist. We’re not looking for a silver bullet here, but through a mixture of aggressive solar, wind, geothermal, and energy efficiency — we can kick the habit.
But the first step is to admit we’ve got a problem. So fill out the survey, and tell Austin Energy you want your power to come from MUCH LESS coal and nuclear and MUCH MORE renewables and efficiency.
If a city as polluted as Los Angeles can commit to stop using coal by 2020, so can we. Let’s walk the walk.
Energia Mia Press Conference Today!!!
Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged CPS, Energia Mia, Local Power, Nuclear, San Antonio, South Texas Nucler Project, Texas on August 5, 2009 |
The press conference marking the announcement of the formation the Energia Mia Coalition takes place today, Aug 5th at 4:30 at St. Paul’s Community Center, 1201 Donaldson – at Donaldson and St. Cloud Road. The media arrives at 5:00 and several people from local groups are scheduled to speak. For any questions contact Cindy Weehler, at, 210-367-8510 or Kat Swift 210-471-1791. We hope to see as many people there as we can get, thanks for your support.
Many concerned San Antonio citizens will speak including: Patti Radle, Former City Council Member
Diana Lopez, Southwest Workers Union
Charles Schirmer, Project Verde
Mariana Ornelas, AGUA – Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas Christel Villareal, Highland Hills Neighborhood Association
John Carlos Garcia, District 7
Margarita Maldonado, District 8
David Wells, Alamo Group of the Sierra Club Charles English, Jefferson Heights Neighborhood Association
Alyssa Burgin, Texas Drought Project
Pedro Fernandez, Green Party
John Courage, San Antonio Area Progressive Action Coalition
Also the coalition would like to announce the opening of its website: http://www.energiamia.org/.
Energia Mia: San Antonio coalition tries to stop expansion of South Texas Project Nuke Boondoggle
Posted in Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, tagged CPS, Energy, Engergía Mia, Local, NRG, Nuclear, nuke, Power, SAAPAC, south texas nuclear project, STP, Texas on July 24, 2009 |
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.
Express News Editorial Gets It, Why Doesn’t CPS?
Posted in Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, tagged Arjun Makhijani, CPS Energy, electricity, energy storage, Nuclear, renewable energy, San Antonio, san antonio express news, solar, South Texas Project, Texas, wind 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.
South Texas Nuclear Project: The Early Years
Posted in Consumers, Efficiency, Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, Renewables, tagged brown and root, CPS Energy, houston lighting and power, Nuclear Power, nuclear reactors, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ralph nader, reactors, San Antonio, South Texas Project, Texas, three mile island 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
A Look at Uranium Mining
Posted in Energy, Nuclear, Toxics, tagged Areva, cancer, Energy, Heavy Metals, Leaching, Mines, Mining, Navajo, Nuclear, Power, Public Eye Award, Radiation, Radon, Southwest, Texas, Uranium on July 8, 2009 |
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
South Texas Project Nuclear Reactors Too Expensive, CPS Cost Estimate Overly Optimistic
Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged $13 billion, Arjun Makhijani, bay city, City Council, city public services, clarence johnson, CPS, energy policy, mark cooper, matthew johnson, Moody's, NRC, nrg energy, nuclear expansion, nuclear reactor, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, nuclear renaissance, Public Citizen, san antonio express news, South Texas Project, STP, Texas, vermont law school, wallstreet 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.
CPS’ Reactor Cost Estimate Naïve; Ignores History and Independent Reports
Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged Arjun Makhijani, City Council, clarence johnson, CPS, CPS Energy, NRG, nrg energy, nuclear cost, nuclear expansion, Nuclear Power, nuke, San Antonio, South Texas Project, STP, Texas, wall street 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.
Whoops!! Nukes Fail to Pay-off
Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged municipal bonds default, northwest energy, Nuclear Power, nuke, nukes, Texas, washington public power supply, whoops, wppss on June 22, 2009 |
An abandoned WPPSS cooling Tower
Whoops is a word with a negative connotation. It is also a word commonly associated, for better or worse, with Northwest Energy. It is an association they been trying to shake since the 1980s. They even went as far as to pay $260,000 in a 1998 lawsuit to avoid being associated with the stigma of Whoops.
It all began in late 1950’s, when the coalition of utilities now known as Northwest Energy originally came together under the name Washington Public Power Supply (WPPSS, pronounced whoops). During the seventies they developed an ambitious plan to build 5 nuclear power plants, funded by municipal bonds. For a decade the project was plagued with delays, surprise expenses and plan revisions. WPPSS had to contend with inflation, high interest rates, constantly changing safety requirements, shifting public opinion and a management team that had no experience in building nuclear power plants.
By the early eighties the estimated cost of completing the project had jumped from $4.1 billion to $23.8 billion. The WPPSS managers decided that completing the project was too expensive to be feasible and chose to default on the $2.25 billion in borrowed money they had already spent. This became the largest municipal bonds default in U.S history, and it created a decades worth of law suits from angry investors and did considerable damage to the regional economy. Responsibility for paying this money eventually fell on the member utilities, or more specifically, their customers. When in 1988 WPPSS reach a $753 million dollar settlement with many of its investors, most of them received just 10 to 40 cents per each dollar they invested.
The disaster dubbed “Whoops” has haunted WPPSS for years. By 1998, the entity decided to change its name to Northwest Energy and paid another company with the same name $260,000 for the rights to that name. This was done primarily because the WPPSS name and the reputation that went with it was hurting business. For years the remains of the abandoned power plants have stood, as well as the debt owed by the rate payers of the utilities to remind us of the Whoops debacle.
This is a really unfortunate story, but there are many important lessons to be learned from it. First of all, it shows that nuclear power plants are and have always been very expensive to build, and even more expensive to build if the appropriate safety precautions are made. This is especially true if the bill is paid by investors and the government is not pitching in. Nuclear power is literally the most expensive known way of boiling water and we should not trust claims that it is cheap. Secondly, it teaches us that we should not lock ourselves into using energy plans that are unable to adapt to changes in the economy, safety standards and consumer preferences. The story of the “Whoops” debacle should serve as a warning, as well, to entities planning on building new nuclear plants here in Texas.
Northwest Energy has expanded its game into many other energy sources over the past 3 decades. These include wind, solar and biomass. Unfortunately they have recently expressed interest in not only expanding their coal burning facilities, but are also talking about building a new nuclear plant, possibly at the location of one of the sites abandoned during the eighties.
I would urge anyone who is not satisfied with the cost effectiveness or the safety of nuclear power to voice their concern and openly question the reasoning used to justify the building of a new WPPSS plant.
The Disappointed Environmentalist
Support our work!
">spousalSubscribe by Email
Categories
Popular Tags
air pollution Air Quality Austin Austin Energy Barnett shale Carbon Dioxide clean air act Clean Energy climate change Coal coal plant CPS Energy Energy Energy Efficiency Environmental Protection Agency EPA eye on williamson Global Warming green jobs houston Keystone Pipeline natural gas Nuclear Nuclear Power Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Citizen public citizen texas radioactive waste renewable energy Renewables Rick Perry San Antonio SEED Coalition Sierra Club solar solar power south texas chisme South Texas Project TCEQ Texas Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Texas Legislature texas progressive alliance Tom "Smitty" Smith United States Environmental Protection Agency
Citizen Vox Blog-
350 Challenge
Pages
May 2025 M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Archives
Meta