by jboullion | Apr 4, 2011 | Uncategorized
From a commentary by Mark Z. Jacobson in the New York Daily News:
The powerful earthquake and tsunami that caused reactors at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant to shut down – releasing radiation and endangering workers and evacuees – have many Americans asking whether nuclear energy is worth the investment and risk.
I say not. In fact, it should not have taken a disaster of this kind to move us decisively away from nuclear and toward safe, clean, renewable energy. . . .
If the world’s energy needs were converted to electricity for all purposes – and nuclear supplied such energy – 15,800 large nuclear reactors, one installed every day for the next 43 years, would be needed. The installation of even 5% of these would nearly double the current number of reactors, giving many more countries the potential to develop weapons. If only one weapon were used in a city, it could kill 1 to 16 million people.
***
Why do we need nuclear energy when we have safer, cleaner options that can provide greater power for a much longer period and at lower cost to society? These better options are called WWS, for “wind, water and sunlight.” The chance of catastrophe caused by nature or terrorists acting on wind or solar, in particular, is zero.
During their lifetimes, WWS technologies emit no pollution – whereas nuclear does, since continuous energy is needed to mine, transport and refine uranium and reactors require much longer to permit and install than do WWS technologies. Overall, nuclear emits 9 to 25 times more air pollution and carbon dioxide than does wind per unit energy generated.
***
Some argue that nuclear is more reliable than WWS systems. This is not true. A nuclear reactor affects a larger fraction of the grid when it fails than does a wind turbine. The average maintenance downtime of modern wind turbines on land is 2%. That of France’s 59 reactors is 21.5%, with about half due to scheduled maintenance.
by jboullion | Jan 5, 2011 | Uncategorized
From a column by John LaForge of Nukewatch, a Wisconsin-based organization, in The Capital Times:
The owners of two 40-year-old nuclear reactors at Point Beach, on Lake Michigan north of Two Rivers, want to increase the power output for each unit by 17 percent — from 1,540 megawatts to 1,800.
The gunning of rickety old nukes is getting a green light all over the region.
The Monticello reactor, 30 miles from Minneapolis, will boost its output to 120 percent of the original licensed limit — from 613 megawatts to 684. Monticello’s been rattling along since 1971, and it rattles badly. In 2007, a 35,000-pound turbine control box (6 feet by 6 feet and 20 feet long) broke its welds and fell onto a large steam pipe that was cut open, causing the loss of so much pressure that an automatic reactor shutdown was tripped. Decades of intense vibration and poor welding were blamed for the crash. The reactor had been operating at 90 percent power. So why not push the limits to 120 percent?
In 2009 the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission rejected claims that the accident record at the two Prairie Island reactors, south of Minneapolis, is so bad that its license extension should be denied. In May 2006, one of them accidentally spewed radioactive iodine-131 gas over 110 of its own workers, who inhaled it. Internal radiation poisoning is the kind for which there is no decontamination. Even so, the NRC could soon OK letting the Prairie Island jalopies run until 2033 and 2034, respectively, rather than shut them down in 2013 and 2014 as the license now requires.
Back in Wisconsin, Point Beach’s “extended power uprate” (EPU) plan was published in the Federal Register by the NRC Dec. 10. The draft environmental assessment and “finding of no significant impact” are hair-raising. The public has until Jan. 8 to comment.
Should we be skeptical? Point Beach has received two of only four “Red findings” — the worst failure warning available — ever issued by the NRC. In 2006, the NRC found that operators had harassed a whistle-blower who documented technical violations. In 2005, Point Beach was fined $60,000 for deliberately giving false information to federal inspectors. In May 1996, it was the site of a potentially catastrophic explosion of hydrogen gas that upended the 3-ton lid on a huge cask filled with high-level radioactive waste. The lid was being robotically welded when the gas exploded.
by jboullion | Dec 29, 2010 | Uncategorized
From an article by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Household prices will rise less than 5%, still much higher than inflation
By Thomas Content of the Journal Sentinel
We Energies customers will see their electric bills rise Jan. 1, with double-digit increases projected for the utility’s biggest ratepayers.
The utility’s largest energy-users – factories and other large businesses -can expect their bills to jump about 13% on average, said Brian Manthey, utility spokesman. Most other business customers can expect electric bills to rise 8% to 10%.
Residential customers can expect an increase of less than 5%.
By comparison, the rate of inflation increased 1.1% from a year ago, according to the latest report from the U.S. Labor Department.
The culprit behind the Jan. 1 increase is the loss of credits that were linked to the sale of the Point Beach nuclear power plant several years ago. Those credits, which have expired, helped mask a substantial rate increase in 2008.
Since 2008, We Energies has refunded more than $700 million to Wisconsin customers from the $1 billion sale of the Point Beach nuclear plant to NextEra Energy Resources, a subsidiary of FPL Group Inc. of Juno Beach, Fla.
For business customers in particular, the credits have helped offset increases on their bills, even as the utility has received approval to raise rates to compensate for higher fuel costs and power plant construction.
Todd Stuart, executive director of the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, said his members who are We Energies customers face increases in the range of 12% to 15%, although one energy-intensive firm faces a 20% increase.
“Most of our members have been aware of it for some time, but that doesn’t mean it’s not going to hurt when those credits come off,” he said. “There’s going to be a sting; there’s no doubt about it.”
Stuart was lobbying the state Public Service Commission to reject a big rate increase three years ago when the commission also authorized the credits to start flowing back to customers.
“That’s truly the underlying problem, that the increase in 2008 was 17%,” Stuart said. “And the credits have been masking that, until now.”
by jboullion | Dec 29, 2010 | Uncategorized
From a column by John LaForge of Nukewatch, a Wisconsin-based organization, in The Capital Times:
The owners of two 40-year-old nuclear reactors at Point Beach, on Lake Michigan north of Two Rivers, want to increase the power output for each unit by 17 percent — from 1,540 megawatts to 1,800.
The gunning of rickety old nukes is getting a green light all over the region.
The Monticello reactor, 30 miles from Minneapolis, will boost its output to 120 percent of the original licensed limit — from 613 megawatts to 684. Monticello’s been rattling along since 1971, and it rattles badly. In 2007, a 35,000-pound turbine control box (6 feet by 6 feet and 20 feet long) broke its welds and fell onto a large steam pipe that was cut open, causing the loss of so much pressure that an automatic reactor shutdown was tripped. Decades of intense vibration and poor welding were blamed for the crash. The reactor had been operating at 90 percent power. So why not push the limits to 120 percent?
In 2009 the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission rejected claims that the accident record at the two Prairie Island reactors, south of Minneapolis, is so bad that its license extension should be denied. In May 2006, one of them accidentally spewed radioactive iodine-131 gas over 110 of its own workers, who inhaled it. Internal radiation poisoning is the kind for which there is no decontamination. Even so, the NRC could soon OK letting the Prairie Island jalopies run until 2033 and 2034, respectively, rather than shut them down in 2013 and 2014 as the license now requires.
Back in Wisconsin, Point Beach’s “extended power uprate” (EPU) plan was published in the Federal Register by the NRC Dec. 10. The draft environmental assessment and “finding of no significant impact” are hair-raising. The public has until Jan. 8 to comment.
Should we be skeptical? Point Beach has received two of only four “Red findings” — the worst failure warning available — ever issued by the NRC. In 2006, the NRC found that operators had harassed a whistle-blower who documented technical violations. In 2005, Point Beach was fined $60,000 for deliberately giving false information to federal inspectors. In May 1996, it was the site of a potentially catastrophic explosion of hydrogen gas that upended the 3-ton lid on a huge cask filled with high-level radioactive waste. The lid was being robotically welded when the gas exploded.
by jboullion | May 21, 2010 | Uncategorized
From an article by Judy Newman in the Wisconsin State Journal:
Alliant Energy is giving up on the idea of building more coal-fired power plants “for the time being,” Alliant chairman, president and chief executive Bill Harvey said Thursday.
In an interview after the Madison utility holding company’s annual shareholders meeting, Harvey said Alliant subsidiary Wisconsin Power & Light will not ask for a new coal-fueled power plant to replace one proposed for Cassville that state regulators rejected in late 2008.
“I think it’s politically … too risky to think about building coal plants until climate legislation gets in place,” Harvey said. “There’s got to be substantial technological improvements before the country returns to building coal plants. That’s certainly true for us,” he said.
Thanks to adequate power available to buy on the electric transmission grid, Harvey said it will likely be two or three years before Alliant proposes building another natural-gas-fired power plant. That could happen sooner, though, if the economy recovers quickly or if climate change rules force the company to abandon its older coal-fired power plants sooner than expected.
As for nuclear power, Harvey said Alliant is not big enough to consider spending up to $10 billion to build a nuclear plant but it might buy part of a new one, if one is built. “We have to consider that. We have to consider all possibilities,” he said.
