Nuclear Costs What's NewNuclear Costs What's Newhttp://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-costs-whatsnew/2012-01-28T02:12:27ZSquarespace"Another One Bites the Dust!": Progress Energy may cancel two new AP1000s targeted at Levy, Florida!http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-costs-whatsnew/2012/1/27/another-one-bites-the-dust-progress-energy-may-cancel-two-ne.htmladmin2012-01-28T02:11:44Z2012-01-28T02:11:44ZGraphic courtesy of Fairewinds Associates

As reported by the Tampa Bay Times, Progess Energy has announced an indefinite suspension of the construction plans for two Toshiba-Westinghouse so-called "Advanced Passive 1000" (AP1000) atomic reactors targeted at the greenfield (no old reactors already there) site at Levy, Florida. That's the good news. The bad news is that Florida ratepayers are nonetheless locked into paying "advance" charges for the new reactors on their electricity bills month after month for years to come, even though the reactors may never get built. Such "Construction Work in Progress" charges are illegal in most states, although have been made legal in such states as Florida, South Carolina, and Georgia in an effort to grease the skids for new atomic reactor proposals, at ratepayer expense.

By the end of last year, Progress Energy's 1.6 million Florida ratepayers had already made $545 million in "advance" payments on their electricity bills toward the Levy new reactors, or an average of about $340 per person. Progress Energy fully intends to extract yet another $555 million from its ratepayers in the years ahead, or another $350 per person, whether or not the reactors actually get built and fired up.

The Levy new reactors have been a case study in cost overruns. As the article reports, Progress Energy first estimated in 2006 that a single AP1000 would cost as little as $4 billion. The very next year, the projected price tag had jumped to $10 billion per reactor. A year after that, Progress added a second new reactor to the proposal, and estimated the cost at a total of $17 billion. But last year, the price projection had reached $22 billion for the twin AP1000s.

The project has also been a case study in schedule delays. In 2006, Progress said its new reactor would fire up in 2016. By 2009, Progress admitted the opening date had slipped two years into the future, to 2018. By 2010, the opening date had retreated yet further, to 2021. Progress is now admitting that the project won't open till 2027, if at all.

Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer at Fairewinds Associates in Vermont and expert witness for an environmental coalition opposed to new AP1000s targeted throughout the Southeast, was quoted as saying "It's a dramatic strategy change (by Progress)...Now, it looks like they're retreating." Gundersen has identified a major safety flaw in the AP1000's supposedly "advanced, passive" design, which could actively pump hazardous radioactivity into the environment during an accident (see graphic, above).

]]>Fukushima further bursts "nuclear renaissance" bubblehttp://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-costs-whatsnew/2012/1/2/fukushima-further-bursts-nuclear-renaissance-bubble.htmladmin2012-01-02T05:33:37Z2012-01-02T05:33:37ZImages such as this explosion at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 were seared in the public mindIn a new report entitled "Nuclear Safety and Nuclear Economics: Historically, Accidents Dim the Prospects for Nuclear Reactor Construction; Fukushima Will Have a Major Impact," Dr. Mark Cooper of the Vermont Law School's Institute for Energy and the Environment compares the cost increases for new reactor construction -- due to increased nuclear safety regulation in the aftermath of the 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown -- to escalating costs that can be expected after the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe. Cooper points out, however, the new reactor construction costs were already skyrocketing before the TMI and Fukushima meltdowns -- but the accidents accelerated the cost increases dramatically.

He concludes: "From a big picture perspective, Fukushima has had and is likely to continue to have an electrifying impact because it combines the most powerful message from TMI on cost escalation with the most powerful message from Chernobyl on the risk of nuclear reactors in a nation where it was not supposed to happen. And, it has taken place in an environment where information and images flow instantaneously around the world, so the public sees the drama and trauma of losing control of a nuclear reaction in real time."

]]>What is really behind the "witch hunt" targeted at NRC Chairman Jaczko?http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-costs-whatsnew/2011/12/29/what-is-really-behind-the-witch-hunt-targeted-at-nrc-chairma.htmladmin2011-12-29T22:33:57Z2011-12-29T22:33:57ZAlex Flint, NEI's top lobbyist, was a primary author behind the creation of the nuclear loan guarantee programRyan Grim of Huffington Post, in an in-depth investigative report, documents that U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner (NRC) William Magwood IV and top Nuclear Energy Institute lobbyist Alex Flint have worked together before to "take down" Democratic political appointees in the nuclear energy field. Andrew Cockburn had also previously reported on this story at Counterpunch, quoting Beyond Nuclear's Kevin Kamps:

“[NRC Chairman Jaczko's] not ‘our guy’ by any means, he has voted to re-license plants that should probably be shut down” says Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear.  “But he does care about safety, in ways that the [other NRC Commissioners] do not.”

Alex Flint (pictured, left), while serving as a top committee staffer for U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, was a primary author of the nuclear loan guarantee language in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which has already netted the nuclear power industry with $22.5 billion of taxpayer-backed nuclear loan guarantees for new reactors and uranium enrichment facilities. Flint now works for the Nuclear Energy Institute as Senior Vice President for Governmental Affairs.

One of Jaczko's greatest "transgressions" against the nuclear power industry and its right wing political supporters -- earning their eternal wrath -- seems to be his carrying out of President Obama's policy decision to phase out the Yucca Mountain high-level radioactive waste dump. Before becoming an NRC Commissioner, Magwood had advocated for opening the Yucca dump.

Media coverage of this "mutiny" at the highest levels of the NRC began on Friday, December 9th with U.S. Representative Darrell Issa's (Republican-California) public release of a letter from NRC Commissioners Magwood, Svinicki, Ostendorff, and Apostolakis to President Obama that was clearly marked "Not for Public Disclosure," and has continued up to the present, as documented, with links to the articles, at the State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Project's What's News page.

The webcast of the 3 hour, 30 minute long hearing on these matters, conducted on Dec. 15, 2011 by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), featuring the five NRC Commissioners as the sole witnesses, is archived online.

]]>Subsidized new reactors granted design approval by NRC in Georgia and South Carolinahttp://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-costs-whatsnew/2011/12/22/subsidized-new-reactors-granted-design-approval-by-nrc-in-ge.htmladmin2011-12-23T01:06:18Z2011-12-23T01:06:18ZAs reported by the New York Times, the five Commissioners of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission today approved the design certification for Toshiba-Westinghouse's so-called "Advanced Passive 1000" (AP1000, which is actually an 1,100 Megawatt-electric reactor) reactor design. This would allow construction of two new reactors at Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia, and two new reactors at Summer nuclear power plant in South Carolina, to accelerate. The approval comes despite a major design flaw identified by nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen, working on behalf of an environmental coalition opposing new AP1000s proposed across the Southeast. Both the Vogtle and Summer new reactor projects enjoyed ratepayer subsidies in the form of current "Construction Work in Progress" charges on electricity bills, something that is illegal in most states. In addition, the Vogtle project received an $8.3 billion nuclear loan guarantee, announced by President Obama himself in February, 2010. If actually built, this would be the first new reactor order actually constructed in the U.S. since October 1973. All other orders after that point were either cancelled outright, or abandoned midway.

]]>Many tens of billions of dollars of nuclear costs for Canadian taxpayers and ratepayershttp://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-costs-whatsnew/2011/11/26/many-tens-of-billions-of-dollars-of-nuclear-costs-for-canadi.htmladmin2011-11-26T21:35:54Z2011-11-26T21:35:54ZPat McNamara's Nuclear Genocide in Canada includes numerous examples of the massive costs of nuclear power for ratepayers and taxpayers in that country, including cost for replacement electricity during long duration safety related shutdowns at large atomic reactors, cost overruns for building new reactors, exorbitant costs for "refurbishing" reactors just 20 years old, as well as decommissioning costs for which the nuclear utility was supposed to set aside funding, but simply didn't. Altogether, Canadian public subsidies for propping up the nuclear power industry will costs taxpayers and ratepayers many tens of billions of dollars.

]]>"Nuclear is the single biggest business disaster in the history of the world."http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-costs-whatsnew/2011/11/26/nuclear-is-the-single-biggest-business-disaster-in-the-histo.htmladmin2011-11-26T20:52:39Z2011-11-26T20:52:39Z"Nuclear is the single biggest business disaster in the history of the world. No other technology has failed so big, so often, and so spectacularly. No other technology has needed so much help from so many governments over so long a period of a time. Because of its sorry record, almost all developed nations decades ago scrapped their nuclear-expansion plans." This quote, by Lawrence Solomon, appeared in the National Post on March 8, 2008. It is cited in Pat McNamara's Nuclear Genocide in Canada, in Part 4 on "Nuclear Costs to Date."

]]>"The Energy Department's loan guarantee program is the real Solyndra scandal"http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-costs-whatsnew/2011/11/18/the-energy-departments-loan-guarantee-program-is-the-real-so.htmladmin2011-11-19T00:27:36Z2011-11-19T00:27:36ZToday's Washington Post editorial headline above got it spot on! A high-profile hearing before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce government oversight subcommittee has shined a bright spotlight on the "Solyndra solar scandal," but nary a word about much more risky nuclear loan guarantees was uttered. The Washington Post has run three articles and an editorial in the past two days in its print edition: yesterday's "Solyndra made demands of Energy Department" and "Upton sought loan for now-ailing solar company in Michigan"; today's front page above the fold "Energy chief defends agency"; and today's lead editorial "No fun in the sun." Hopefully, the magnifying lens being taken to the Solyndra solar loan guarantee default will also be applied to already approved, and future proposed, nuclear loan guarantees! See Beyond Nuclear's nuclear loan guarantee website section for more information, as well as our summary backgrounder on U.S. Representative Fred Upton's (R-MI) nuclear power industry cheerleading (see the section entitled "Handing over the keys of the U.S. Treasury to the nuclear power industry").

]]>"White House orders audit of Energy Dept. loans"http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-costs-whatsnew/2011/11/11/white-house-orders-audit-of-energy-dept-loans.htmladmin2011-11-11T23:30:11Z2011-11-11T23:30:11ZThe Washington Post reported an article by that title on its front page on October 29th. Although focused on the fallout from the Solyndra solar loan guarantee scandal -- the taxpayer loss of $535 million due to the bankruptcy of the California-based solar panel manufacturer -- and mentioning another federal energy loan guarantee at risk of default in a separate article on the same day entitled "Obama adviser tied to firm that won loan: Political ties played no role in DOE's decision, car company says" (to the Vehicle Production Group for a compressed natural gas vehicle designed to accomodate wheel chairs), the Washington Post does not mention federal loan guarantees for new nuclear facilities. Nor do Republican U.S. House Members mention nuclear loan guarantees, as they are poised to subpoena the Obama administration for documents related to the Solyndra scandal. The right wing Americans for Prosperity has even launched a campaign against all of Obama's solar loan guarantees, not just Solyndra's, including high-priced t.v. ads -- but again, doesn't mention nuclear loan guarantees, or those for other dirty energy projects, including coal based ones.

President Obama himself announced the award of an $8.3 billion nuclear loan guarantee for two new atomic reactors at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. That amounts to more than 15 times more taxpayer money at risk than was lost in the Solyndra solar default.

]]>Boehner blasted for nuclear hypocrisyhttp://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-costs-whatsnew/2011/11/2/boehner-blasted-for-nuclear-hypocrisy.htmladmin2011-11-02T23:52:37Z2011-11-02T23:52:37ZKevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear appeared on the Thom Hartmann Show, blasting U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (Republican-Ohio) for advocating for a nuclear loan guarantee in Ohio, while supposedly being against the energy loan guarantee program in the first place, based on fiscal conservative and free market principles. Boehner supports federal taxpayer backed nuclear loan guarantees for a uranium enrichment facility proposed by U.S. Enrichment Corporation at Portsmouth, Ohio. Kevin also gave updates on the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe, and shield building cracks and the history of near-disasters at Davis-Besse atomic reactor near Toledo.

]]>Markey's "Nuclear Power Plant Safety Act of 2011" would require nuclear loan guarantees to consider Fukushima catastrophe riskshttp://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-costs-whatsnew/2011/8/26/markeys-nuclear-power-plant-safety-act-of-2011-would-require.htmladmin2011-08-26T05:22:32Z2011-08-26T05:22:32ZU.S. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA)On March 29, 2011 -- just 18 days after the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe began -- U.S. Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced the "Nuclear Power Plant Safety Act of 2011." Its Section 3 on Loan Guarantees would amend Section 1702(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16512(b)) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following: "In the case of a guarantee for advanced nuclear energy facilities, the Secretary [of Energy] shall ensure that the cost of the obligation is calculated using a consideration of the Tohoku earthquake of 2011 to estimate the risk characteristics of the project."

]]>