Tag Archives: department of energy

A quiet but HUGE no nukes triumph

Posted on by
In the wake of Copenhagen, an unheralded but hard-fought No Nukes victory has moved us closer to a green-powered Earth.It has happened in upstate New York, where the Unistar Nuclear Energy front group asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to delay its application to build a reactor at Oswego, near Syracuse.

Meanwhile, in Texas, the San Antonio city council’s deliberations over building two new reactors has disintegrated into recriminations, resignations and firings over a multi-billion-dollar price jump in projected cost estimates, a furor that could doom reactor construction there as well. And in Vermont, Entergy has threatened to shut its Yankee reactor if the legislature does not approve a complex maneuver that would allow its owners to escape certain financial liabilities.

Throughout the US, while the corporate media hypes a “renaissance” of new nukes, facts on the ground say the opposite is happening. The longer that trend continues, the more likely we are to win a world powered by the Solartopian technologies that really work, including wind, solar, geothermal, sustainable bio-fuels, increased efficiency/conservation, and more.

The Oswego postponement stems from the successful national grassroots campaign sparked by NukeFree.org and others dating to late 2007. When the Bush Administration asked for $50 billion in loan guarantees to build new reactors, a well coordinated campaign rose up, complete with a music video from Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne, Graham Nash, K’eb Mo and Ben Harper (www.nukefree.org). With help from key Congressional Democrats, a wide range of organizations and individuals rallied to get the $50 billion package out of proposed energy legislation. Grassroots opposition has since beaten the proposed guarantees two more times.

It is as yet unclear what new reactor funding will come from Washington in the near future. There is still an $18.5 billion loan guarantee fund left over from the Bush Era. But the Department of Energy has run into serious political and procedural problems in administering the money. It may soon announce one or more new reactor projects designated to get the money, possibly including one in Georgia, where ratepayers have been put on the line to underwrite construction even if the plant never opens.

Republican proposals for virtually unlimited future loan guarantees are now being targeted for a Climate Bill and other legislation that may or may not make it through Congress in the coming months. Sen. John McCain(R-AZ) and other industry supporters are pushing hard for major federal financing. The Obama Administration has made some pro-nuclear rumblings, but remains elusive in terms of firm commitments.

Because the reactor industry cannot get private financing for new reactors, all the pro-nuke rhetoric in the world will mean nothing without federal subsidies. After 50 years, the industry doesn’t have Wall Street’s backing. Nor can it get private liability insurance in case of a major disaster. And it still lacks a solution for its radioactive waste problem.

Most critically of all, the longer new construction is delayed the less competitive the industry becomes. Cost estimates are literally all over the map, with $7-9 billion for a 1000 megawatt reactor being current used as a benchmark.

But even that is not expected to last. The Oswego project involves a design financed by the French government. This latest setback indicates even they may not be as bullish on reactors as they hype would indicate. As Michael Mariotte of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service puts it, “Unistar’s postponement is just another indicator that new reactors will not be built unless American taxpayers are forced to take the financial risk.”

Thus as the dust settles from the failures in Copenhagen, the US might look to the conference’s host country. In the 1970s a powerful Green movement stopped the Danes from going nuclear.

Instead, as even the New York Times’s pro-nuclear Thomas Friedman has recently acknowledged, Denmark successfully focussed on wind power. Today the wind industry is one of Denmakr’s top employers, and is a major source of both clean green energy and significant financial profit.

Throughout the world, the cost of renewables is plummeting while reactor prices soar. So if America’s thus-far successful grassroots campaign against massive federal loan guarantees and other nuclear bailouts can continue, we just might find ourselves on a parallel path to a green-powered Earth.

Harvey Wasserman’s SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH is at www.harveywasserman.com, as is HARVEY WASSERMAN’S HISTORY OF THE US. He is senior advisor to Greenpeace US, and senior editor of www.freepress.org.

Sarah Palin, Polar Bears and Exxon Junk Science

Posted on by

Today, Guardian writer Ed Pilkington took a fresh swat at Governor Sarah Palin’s use and defense of Exxon-funded junk science on polar bears in the State of Alaska’s attempts to to kill the listing of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act.

We have covered the evolution of this story on ExxonSecrets for over a year here and here with links to articles and documents of interest.

Much has been made of Palin’s denial of global warming since she was nominated as the GOP Veep candidate, but no one has questioned her credibility for using ‘research’ that was funded by ExxonMobil, American Petroleum Institute and Charles Koch Foundation.

We are wondering if Gwen Ifill of PBS will ask Ms. Palin a pointed question tomorrow? or if Senator Biden has read the Guardian story?

Tom Kizza at the Anchorage Daily News has followed this story the best, filing two good articles earlier in the year here and here.

This classic ExxonSecrets map of the junk science authors from the Dyck, Soon, et al article shows once again the tentacles of the Denial Machine (see page 9 for acknowledgement of funding from Exxon and friends).  Palin’s goon squad cited the Dyck, Soon paper 6 times and even attached a copy of the article (pre-publication) to their 49 page submission to the Department of Interior.

All the background documents can be found on Greenpeace Investigations:

  • Exxon funded junk science
  • rebuttal by real polar bear scientists
  • Alaska’s submissions to Department of Interior

No reporters have questioned Exxon or API about funding this research and no one has gotten the scientists themselves on the record as to how much money they got from Exxon and friends and the marching orders attached to that funding.

 

Atomic Economics & Senator McCain

Posted on by

Just as Americans are being asked to back the biggest bailout in U.S. history, Senator McCain would again put the American taxpayer on the hook for yet another corporate giveaway.

Senator McCain wants to build 100 more nuclear reactors in the U.S., 45 by 2030. But there’s an important detail that the Senator and his campaign fail to mention.  The economics of nuclear power are so abysmal that many nuclear CEO’s will not construct reactors unless the American taxpayer guarantees they wont lose money.

But the good senator and his campaign should know better.  Senator McCain has been around long enough to actually remember the implosion of the nuclear industry.  If his recollection has failed, his economic advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin could refresh his memory. When the notion that the American taxpayer should guarantee loans to nuclear corporations was introduced in the Senate, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) then headed by Senator McCain’s economic advisor Holtz-Eakin found that:

CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources.  http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/42xx/doc4206/s14.pdf

Senator McCain’s support for nuclear loan guarantees can not be justified by the nuclear industry’s past performance.  According to the Department of Energy, the first 75 reactors built in the U.S. experienced cost overruns totaling over $100 billion and that was before the meltdown at Three Mile Island sent the nuclear industry even further into a tailspin.

U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Construction Cost Overruns

Construction
Started
Estimated Overnight Costs
Actual Overnight Costs
Percent Overrun
1966-67
$ 560/kWe
$1,170/kWe
209%
1968-69
$ 679
$2,000
294%
1970-71
$ 760
$2,650
348%
1972-73
$1,117
$3,555
318%
1974-75
$1,156
$4,410
381%
1976-77
$1,493
$4,008
269%

(Joskow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Economics of Investment in New Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S, EIA Midterm Energy Outlook Conference, April 12, 2005. Note: Figures are in 2002$/kWe )

It was this economic track record that doomed nuclear power in the U.S. and led Forbes magazine to declare that the “failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster of monumental scale.” Really, who in their right mind would guarantee loans to an industry with this track record?  Obviously, not Wall Street!

Last July, six major U.S. Banking institutions (some of which have been bought or are now bankrupt) including Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch & Morgan Stanley sent a letter to the Department of Energy (DOE).  The bankers told DOE that unless the U.S. Taxpayer backed 100% of the debt incurred by nuclear corporations that they would have difficulty “accessing capital markets.”

We believe many new nuclear construction projects will have difficulty accessing the capital markets during construction and initial operation without the support of a federal government loan guarantee.  Lenders and investors in the fixed income markets will be acutely concerned about a number of political, regulatory and litigation-related risks that are unique to nuclear power, including the possibility of delays in commercial operation of a completed plant or “another Shoreham”. We believe these risks, combined with the higher capital costs and longer construction schedules of nuclear plants as compared to other generation facilities, will make lenders unwilling at present to extend long-term credit to such projects in a form that would be commercially viable.  http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/nopr-comments/comment29.pdf

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) has also weighed in on these loan guarantees to the nuclear industry. The GAO recently found that the Bush Administration’s DOE does not have the oversight in place to adequately manage the loan guarantee program.  But rather than address the inadequacies identified by the GAO, the Bush administration has accelerated the loan guarantee program.  http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08750.pdf

Senator McCain has already been warned by the CBO, the GAO and Wall Street that building new nuclear power plants is an economic meltdown waiting to happen. Even a subsidiary of Warren Buffet’s corporation Berkshire Hathaway has rejected a new nuclear reactor as economically unsound.

Senator McCain has abandoned his straight talk when it comes to nuclear power.  The Senator needs to  explain why the American taxpayer should be put on the hook for new nuclear plants that the industry would never build if they and their stockholders had to bear the risk.

–Jim Riccio

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricit Greenwashing Dirty Coal

Posted on by

Investigations Brief

The America’s Power campaign, funded by the coal and electricity industry, promotes coal as our country’s solution to energy independence. They do this through the lens of clean coal, when in reality they are simply a front group for an industry lobby aimed to keep dirty coal plants in existence.

The Campaign

Background

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) is a not-for-profit organization (NGO) founded as a result of the merge between Americans for Balanced Energy Choices and Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) [1]. Its stated mission is “to advance the development and deployment of advanced clean coal technologies that will produce electricity with near-zero emissions.” [2]

Campaign Details

ACCCE’s mission is to convey to consumers and elected officials that coal should play a central role in meeting future American energy needs. As it notes on its website, “America can continue to make great progress in improving environmental quality while at the same time enjoying the benefits of using domestic energy resources like coal to meet our growing demand for affordable, reliable and clean energy. In a word…we believe in technology.” [3] As part of this effort, ACCCE has sought to re-brand coal as a “clean” energy source. Its messaging reminds viewers that “half of our electricity comes from coal” and that “coal is our most abundant fuel.” [4]

Ad Bluster

To do this, ACCCE is spending at least $35 million in 2008 to mount a major public relations campaign designed to promote public awareness of clean coal in the context of the Presidential race. They are doing this by flooding the election season with national and local ad campaigns.

ACCCE’s campaign is built around an “American Energy” theme, arguing that “clean” coal-fired power plants are the only viable path to American energy independence. They have run print ads in key primary states to remind prospective voters of their state’s reliance on coal and tout the benefits of clean coal in terms of both jobs and affordable power. To date, the local ads have run in Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania [5]. In addition to a traditional media campaign, ACCCE utilizes a ground force of 150,000 supporters, who they call the “civilian army” and their “Power Van” as a guerilla force to bird-dog political rallies and events across the country festooned with clean coal slogans and a blue sky backdrop [6].

Along with their print ad campaign, ACCCE paid CNN $5 million to be one of the main co-sponsors of six presidential debates, providing saturation advertising both on television and online. Some blogs have noted the irony that during these debates, no questions have been asked about climate and specifically about coal.

Outcome

In 2007 alone, 59 proposed coal plants were cancelled or put on hold and in January DOE pulled the plug on the FutureGen project planned for Illinois that would be the first “near-zero emissions” facility utilizing cap and storage technology because the project was resulting in higher than expected costs. And to top things off, in October 2007, Kansas became the first state to reject issuing a permit for a new coal-fired plan solely because of its potential to contribute to global warming. But the coal industry isn’t giving up, in fact ACCCE has increased its budget from approximately $8 million to $35 million for 2008 [7]. Other industry partners such as the National Mining Association have also increased their lobbying significantly in 2008 [8]. The intention is clear, the coal industry is determined to maintain America’s over reliance on coal as a domestic energy source in spite of the need to diversify energy production to address global warming and minimize any impacts to the coal industry within the energy debate.

Greenwash Revealed

ACCCE is a wholly owned (albeit non-profit) subsidiary of the U.S. coal industry. Its list of 43 supporters reads like a who’s who of the coal, rail, and electricity industries: ALCOA, American Electric Power, CSX, Detroit Edison, Duke Energy, Peabody Energy, Southern Company and Union Pacific Railroad. Its real purpose, contrary to its claims, is not to promote coal as a source for clean or green energy, but merely to ensure that the United States continues to be highly dependent on coal for its energy needs.

It’s the Law, Stupid

Not surprisingly, ACCCE’s promotion of clean coal plays with the facts. Although ACCCE claims that its “coal-based generating fleet is 70 percent cleaner than before,” these numbers refer only to reductions in sulfur oxide (SOX) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions [9]. The coal industry has yet to implement technology to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the main cause of global warming. ACCCE also fails to state anywhere in its campaign or on its website that coal plants are cleaner today not because of the industry’s voluntary efforts, but rather as a result of legislative mandates or court decisions [10].

Perhaps the most misleading component of ACCCE’s campaign is its implication that new and better CCS technologies capable of creating “near-zero emissions” are right around the corner. In reality, some scientists feel that the earliest CCS technology could be implemented is 2030 and would cost billions [11]. This is illustrated by the DOE’s decision to pull out of FutureGen when the project began to exceed projected costs.

Political Spin

While the public mission of the group is to promote clean coal, a closer look at the group reveals otherwise. Newly formed in 2008, ACCCE is the latest version of the long lineage of coal front groups. If you look at the federal tax records for ACCCE’s parent organization, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC), you will find the true nature of their work. In their 2006 tax records, ABEC claims that they promote “an increased awareness of improvements in U.S. air quality and the coal-based electricity sector’s role in America’s ongoing environmental progress as well as the mobilization of a citizen army on issues involving various state regulatory and legislative actions including decisions on implementation of EPA’s Clean Air Mercury rule and actions to regulate utility greenhouse gas emissions.” [12]

At the same time that ACCCE was telling the public that it was dedicated to clean technology, it was spending over $2.6 million lobbying Congress. According to lobbying records, it “opposed the national renewal portfolio” in the Comprehensive Energy Bill (HR 6) and contested the America’s Climate Security Act (better known as the Lieberman-Warner bill) when it came before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee [13].

Dirty Business

While, ACCCE promotes the benefits of coal to local communities, they neglect to speak to the reality of the environmental damage caused by its extraction and use. They fail to mention the impacts of air pollutants and mercury contamination produced in the burning of coal, which are known to cause cancer, impair reproduction, inhibit child development, damage the nervous and immune systems, and worsen respiratory ailments like asthma. They never mention the environmental impact of coal mining, which includes erosion, groundwater contamination, habitat destruction, and toxic waste. Environmental and economic costs incurred in waste disposal and land reclamation and transportation are also omitted from the dialog [14].

Perhaps most relevant to its current campaign, ACCCE proudly admits that 50 percent of our electricity comes from coal, yet they neglect to admit its contribution to climate change. The EPA documented that in 2006 electricity generation “is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, representing 33 percent of total US emissions [15]. In reality, there is nothing “clean” about the coal electicity it promotes.

[1] America’s Power
[2] America’s Power
[3] America’s Power
[4] America’s Power
[5] America’s Power
[6] America’s Power
[7] 2006 IRS form 990, Americans For Balanced Energy Choices Greenpeace Investigations
[8] The Washington Post
[9] America’s Power
[10] Keating, Martha. Cradle to Grave: The Environmental Impacts from Coal. June 2001 Clean Air Task Force
[11] New Scientist, “Can coal live up to its clean promise?” March 27, 2008
[12] 2006 IRS form 990, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices Greenpeace Investigations
[13] Lobbying Report, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, 2007, Greenpeace Investigations website
[14] Keating, passim.
[15] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Inventory of U.S Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006″ EPA