Guest guest Posted September 29, 2007 Report Share Posted September 29, 2007 At 11:08 AM 9/29/07, you wrote: >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Featured stories in this issue... > >Why Is Uncle Sam So Committed To Reviving Nuclear Power? > The long-advertised " nuclear renaissance " got under way this week > when NRG Energy applied for a federal license to build two nuclear > power plants in Texas, enticed by an offer of free money from Uncle > Sam. " The whole reason we started down this path was the benefits > written into the Energy Policy Act of 2005, " says NRG's chief > executive, David Crame. >U.N. Climate Panel Report's Key Findings > Here is a concise summary of the findings of the Feb., 2007, report > from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), > representing the work of 2,500 researchers from more than 130 nations. >Frog Deformities Linked To Farm Pollution > The discovery of deformed frogs in many parts of the U.S. and > overseas has caused concern for the survival of their populations. > Without normal limbs, frogs are easy targets for predators. New > research may have found an important contributor to this problem: > fertilizer running off farm fields. >Driving CO2 Underground > The coal industry is ready to bet its future (and, indeed, the > future of the planet) on the hope of burying carbon dioxide under > ground forever. But, " Real data on costs, monitoring requirements, or > the fate of CO2 after years or centuries of being held in an > underground repository are absent and won't become available any time > soon. " >Sentinel at the EPA: An Interview with William Sanjour > Hat's off to Bill Sanjour! He spent many years at U.S. > Environmental Protection Agency rooting out fraud and deception by > agency higher-ups, then living with the negative consequences of his > own honesty, clarity, and courage. > >:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\ ::::::::: > >Rachel's Democracy & Health News #927, Sept. 27, 2007 >[Printer-friendly version] > >WHY IS UNCLE SAM SO COMMITTED TO REVIVING NUCLEAR POWER? > >By Peter Montague > >The long-awaited and much-advertised " nuclear renaissance " actually >got under way this week. NRG Energy, a New Jersey company recently >emerged from bankruptcy, applied for a license to build two new >nuclear power plants at an existing facility in Bay City, Texas -- >the first formal application for such a license in 30 years. > >NRG Energy has no experience building nuclear power plants but they >are confident the U.S. government will assure their success. " The >whole reason we started down this path was the benefits written into >the [Energy Policy Act] of 2005, " NRG's chief executive, David Crame, >told the Washington Post. In other words, the whole reason NRG >Energy wants to build nuclear power plants is to get bundles of free >money from Uncle Sam. Who could blame them? > >Other energy corporations are nuzzling up to the same trough. The >federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is expecting to receive >applications for an additional 29 nuclear power reactors at 20 >sites. The NRC has already hired more than 400 new staff to deal >with the expected flood of applications. > >But the question remains, Can investors be fooled twice? Financially, >the nuclear power industry has never stood on its own two feet without >a crutch from Uncle Sam. Indeed, the nuclear power industry is >entirely a creature of the federal government; it was created out of >whole cloth by the feds in the 1950s. At that time, investors were >enticed by offers of free money -- multi-billion-dollar subsidies, >rapid write-offs, special limits on liability, and federal loan >guarantees. Despite all this special help, by the 1970s the industry >was in a shambles. The British magazine, the Economist, recently >described it this way: " Billions were spent bailing out lossmaking >nuclear-power companies. The industry became a byword for mendacity, >secrecy and profligacy with taxpayers' money. For two decades neither >governments nor bankers wanted to touch it. " > >Now the U.S. federal government is once again doing everything in its >power to entice investors, trying to revive atomic power. > >First, Uncle Sam is trying hard to remove the financial risk for >investors. The Energy Policy Act, which Congress approved in 2005, >provides four different kinds of subsidies for atomic power plants: > >1. It grants $2 billion in insurance against regulatory delays and >lawsuits to the first six reactors that get licenses and begin >construction. Energy corporations borrow money to build plants and >they must start paying interest on those loans immediately, even >though it take years for a plant to start generating income. The >longer the licensing and construction delays, the greater the losses. >Historically, lawsuits or other interventions by citizens have >extended the licensing timeline, sometimes by years, costing energy >corporations large sums. Now Uncle Sam will provide free insurance >against any such losses. > >2. Second, the 2005 law extends the older Price-Anderson Act, which >limits a utility's liability to $10 billion in the event of a nuclear >accident. A serious accident at a nuclear plant near a major city >could create hundreds of billions of dollars in liabilities. Uncle Sam >has agreed to relieve investors of that very real fear. > >3. The 2005 law provides a tax credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour >for the first 6,000 megawatts generated by new plants. Free money, >plain and simple. > >4. Most important, the law offers guarantees loans to fund new atomic >power reactors and other power plants using " innovative " technology. >Investors need no longer fear bad loans. > >One obvious conclusion from all this is that, more than 50 years into >the nuclear enterprise, atomic power still cannot attract investors >and compete successfully in a " free market. " This industry still >requires an unprecedented level of subsidy and other government >support just to survive. > >An energy corporation's motives for buying into this system are clear: >enormous subsidies improve the chance of substantial gain. However, >the federal government's reasons for wanting to revive a moribund >nuclear industry are not so clear. If the " free market " won't support >the revival of nuclear power, why would the federal government want to >pay billions upon billions of dollars to allay investor fears? > >It certainly has little to do with global warming. At the time the >2005 energy bill was passed by a Republic-dominated Congress the >official position of the Republican leadership was that global warming >was a hoax. Even now when some Republicans have begun to acknowledge >that perhaps we may have a carbon dioxide problem, science tells us >that nuclear power plants are not the best way to reduce our carbon >dioxide emissions. They're not even close to being the best >way. (Lazy journalists are in the habit it repeating the industry >mantra that nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases. This is >nonsense. Read on.) > >Substantial carbon dioxide emissions accompany every stage of nuclear >power production, from the manufacture and eventual dismantling of >nuclear plants, to the mining, processing, transport, and enrichment >of uranium fuel, plus the eventual processing, transport, and burial >of nuclear wastes. > >A careful life-cycle analysis by the Institute for Applied Ecology >in Darmstadt, Germany, concludes that a 1250 megaWatt nuclear power >plant, operating 6500 hours per year in Germany, produces greenhouse >gases equivalent to 250,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. >In other (unspecified) countries besides Germany, the same power plant >could produce as much as 750,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide >equivalents, the Institute study shows. (See Figure 3, pg. 5) > >The study concludes that, in the emission of global warming gases >(measured per kilowatt-hour of electricity made available), nuclear >power compares unfavorably to... > >** conservation through efficiency improvements > >** run-of-river hydro plants (which use river water power but require >no dams) > >** offshore wind generators > >** onshore wind generators > >** power plants run by gas-fired internal combustion engines, >especially plants that use both the electricity and the heat generated >by the engine > >** power plants run by bio-fuel-powered internal combustion engines > >Of eleven ways to generate electricity (or avoid the need to generate >electricity through efficiency and conservation) analyzed by the >Institute, four are worse than nuclear from the viewpoint of >greenhouse gas emissions, and six are better. > >[For a great deal of additional solid information showing that nuclear >power is no answer to global warming, check in with the Nuclear >Information and Resource Service (NIRS)]. > >A study completed this summer by the Institute for Energy and >Environmental Research (IEER) in Takoma Park, Maryland concluded that >it is feasible, within 35 to 60 years, to evolve an energy system to >power the U.S. economy without the use of any nuclear power >plants or any coal plants. See the IEER study, Carbon-Free and >Nuclear-Free; A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy. > >So the rationale for the U.S. government's Herculean efforts to revive >a decrepit nuclear power industry cannot be based on concern for >global warming or energy independence. The facts simply don't support >such a rationale. > >Whatever its motivation, the U.S. federal government is doing >everything in its power to revive atomic power. In addition to >removing most of the financial risk for investors, Uncle Sam has >removed other obstacles like democratic participation in siting and >licensing decisions. > >Throughout the 1970s, energy corporations complained that getting a >license took too long. In response, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission >(NRC) has spent more than a decade " streamlining " the process for >building nuclear plants. Most of the " streamlining " consists of new >ways to exclude the public from information and decisions. For >example, members of the public used to be able to question witnesses >during licensing hearings. No more. There used to be two sets of >hearings -- one for siting the plant, and another for constructing the >plant. No more. These two set of issues have been rolled into a single >license and a single hearing. The purpose is to accommodate the needs >of the nuclear industry, to help it survive. As attorney Tony Roisman >observed recently, " The nuclear industry has come to the agency [the >NRC] and said, 'If you don't make it easy for us to get a license, we >are not going to apply for one.' " So the agency is making it easy. > >Perhaps it is natural for NRC commissioners to justify a strong bias >in favor of keeping the nuclear industry alive even if safety and >democracy have to be compromised. After all, if there were no >corporations willing to build new nuclear power plants, soon there >would be no need for a Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So NRC >commissioners know in their bones that their first priority must be to >keep the nuclear industry alive. Every bureaucracy's first priority is >self-perpetuation. Furthermore, historically a position as an NRC >commissioner can lead directly to a high-paying job, often in the >nuclear industry itself. > >To grease the skids for a nuclear revival, the most important change >the NRC has made has been to creatively redefine the meaning of the >word " construction. " This change was enacted in April, 2007, with >lightning speed -- six months from initial proposal to final adoption. >By way of comparison, it took the NRC eleven years to adopt >regulations requiring drug testing for nuclear plant operators. > > " Construction " has traditionally included all the activities >undertaken to build a nuclear power plant, starting with site >selection, evaluation, testing and preparation, construction of >peripheral facilities like cooling towers, and so on. Even the >earliest stages of siting are crucially important with a facility as >complex and dangerous as a nuclear power plant. > >In April of this year, the NRC officially redefined " construction " to >include only construction of the reactor itself -- excluding site >selection, evaluation, testing and preparation, construction of >peripheral facilities and all the rest. At the time, one senior >environmental manager inside NRC complained in an email that NRC's >redefinition of " construction " would exclude from NRC regulation > " probably 90 percent of the true environmental impacts of >construction. " Under the new rules, by the time the NRC gets involved, >a company will have invested perhaps a hundred million dollars. Will >NRC commissioners have the backbone to toss that investment into the >toilet if they eventually find something wrong with the site? Or will >they roll over for the industry and compromise safety? > >The lawyer who dreamed up the redefinition of " construction " is James >Curtiss, himself a former NRC commissioner who now sits on the board >of directors of the nuclear power giant, Constellation Energy Group. >This revolving door pathway from NRC to industry is well-worn. > >One NRC commissioner who voted in April to change the definition of >construction is Jeffrey Merrifield. Before he left the NRC in July, >Mr. Merrifield's last assignment as an NRC commissioner was to chair >an agency task force on ways to accelerate licensing. > >In April, while he was urging his colleagues at NRC to redefine > " construction, " Mr. Merrifield was actively seeking a top management >position within the nuclear industry. In July he became senior vice >president for Shaw Group, a nuclear builder that has worked on 95% of >all existing U.S. nuclear plants. Mr. Merrifield's salary at NRC was >$154,600. Bloomberg reports that, " In Shaw Group's industry peer >group, $705,409 is the median compensation for a senior vice >president. " > >No one in government or the industry seems the least bit embarrassed >by any of this. It's just the way it is. Indeed, Mr. Merrifield points >out that, while he was an NRC commissioner providing very substantial >benefits to the nuclear industry by his decisions, his concurrent >search for a job within the regulated industry was approved by the >NRC's Office of General Counsel and its Inspector General. From this, >one might conclude that Mr. Merrifield played by all the rules and did >nothing wrong. Or one might conclude that venality and corruption >reach into the highest levels of the NRC. Or one might conclude that >after NRC commissioners have completed their assignment inside >government, everyone in the agency just naturally feels they are >entitled to a lifetime of lavish reward from the industry on whose >behalf they have labored so diligently. > >As recently as this summer, Uncle Sam was still devising new ways to >revive nuclear power. In July the U.S. Senate allowed the nuclear >industry to add a one-sentence provision to the energy bill, which >the Senate then passed. The one sentence greatly expanded the loan >guarantee provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The 2005 Act >had specified that Uncle Sam could guarantee loans for new nuclear >power plants up to a limit set each year by Congress. In 2007 the >limit was set at a paltry $4 billion. The one-sentence revision >adopted by the Senate removed all limits on loan guarantees. The >nuclear industry says it needs at least $50 billion in the next two >years. Michael J. Wallace, the co-chief executive of UniStar Nuclear, >a partnership seeking to build nuclear reactors, and executive vice >president of Constellation Energy, said: " Without loan guarantees we >will not build nuclear power plants. " > >The Senate and the House of Representatives are presently arm- >wrestling over the proposed expansion of loan guarantees. In June, the >White House budget office said that the Senate's proposed changes to >the loan-guarantee program could " significantly increase potential >taxpayer liability " and " eliminate any incentive for due diligence by >private lenders. " On Wall Street this is known as a " moral hazard " >-- conditions under which waste, fraud and abuse can flourish. > >All these subsidies to revive a dead duck run directly counter to free >market ideals and capitalism's credo of unfettered competition. So the >intriguing question remains, Why? Why wouldn't the nation go whole-hog >for alternative energy sources and avoid all the problems that >accompany nuclear power -- routine radioactive releases, the constant >fear of a serious accidents, the unsolved problem of radioactive waste >that must be stored somewhere reliably for a million years, and -- the >greatest danger of all -- the inevitable reality that anyone who can >build a nuclear power plant can build an atomic bomb if they set their >minds to it. The recent experience of Israel, India, North Korea and >Pakistan in this regard is completely convincing and undeniable. > >So why is Uncle Sam hell-bent on reviving nuclear power? I >don't have a firm answer and can only speculate. Perhaps from the >viewpoint of both Washington and Wall Street, nuclear power is >preferable to renewable-energy alternatives because it is extremely >capital-intensive and the people who provide the capital get to >control the machine and the energy it provides. It provide a rationale >for a large centralized bureaucracy and tight military and police >security to thwart terrorists. This kind of central control can act as >a powerful counterweight to excessive democratic tendencies in any >country that buys into nuclear power. Particularly if they sign a >contract with the U.S. or one of its close allies for delivery of fuel >and removal of radioactive wastes, political control becomes a >powerful (though unstated) part of the bargain. If you are dependent >on nuclear power for electricity and you are dependent on us for >reactor fuel, you are in our pocket. On the other hand, solar, wind >and other renewable energy alternatives lend themselves to small- >scale, independent installations under the control of local >communities or even households. Who knows where that could lead? > >Then I think of the present situation in the Middle East. Saddam >Hussein started down the road to nuclear power until the Israelis >bombed to smithereens the Osirak nuclear plant he was building in >1981. That ended his dalliance with nuclear power and nuclear weapons >-- but that didn't stop Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney from using >Saddam's nuclear history as an excuse to invade his country and string >him up. > >And now something similar is unfolding in Iran. Iran wants nuclear >power plants partly to show how sophisticated and capable it has >become, and partly to thumb its nose at the likes of Don Rumsfeld and >Dick Cheney -- and perhaps to try to draw us into another war that >would indelibly mark us for the next hundred years as enemies of >Islam, serving to further unite much of the Arab world against us. > >Is this kind of thinking totally nuts? I don't think so. Newsweek >reported in its October 1, 2007 issue that Dick Cheney has been >mulling a plan to convince the Israeli's to bomb the Iranian nuclear >power plant at Natanz, hoping to provoke the Iranians into striking >back so that the U.S. would then have an excuse to bomb Iran. I'm not >making this up. > >So clearly there are more important uses for nuclear power than just >making electricity. Arguably, nuclear reactors have become essential >tools of U.S. foreign policy -- being offered, withheld, and bargained >over. They have a special appeal around the world because they have >become double-edged symbols of modernity, like shiny toy guns that can >be loaded with real bullets. Because of this special characteristic, >they have enormous appeal and can provide enormous bargaining power. >Witness North Korea. And, as we have seen, nuclear reactors can >provide excuses to invade and bomb when no other excuses exist. > >So perhaps Uncle Sam considers it worth investing a few hundred >billion dollars of taxpayer funds to keep this all-purpose Swiss army >knife of U.S. foreign policy available in our back pocket. In the past >five years, we've already devoted $800 billion to splendid little >wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, at least partly to secure U.S. oil >supplies. Uncle Sam's desperate attempts to revive nuclear power can >perhaps best be understood as part of that ongoing effort at oil >recovery. > >Meanwhile, investors should think twice before buying into the > " nuclear renaissance " because there's another " renaissance " under way >as well: A powerful anti-nuclear movement is growing again and they >will toss your billions into the toilet without hesitation. Indeed, >with glee. ****** Kraig and Shirley Carroll ... in the woods of SE Kentucky http://www.thehavens.com/ thehavens 606-376-3363 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release 2/14/05 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.