Powertech fails to answer question [on water contamination]

Sound familiar?

April 30, 2009

On April 23, I attended a Crosscurrents panel discussion titled, "Uranium Mining - To Be or Not To Be." The panel was conducted by the League of Women Voters, was recorded and can be viewed on local cable television.

During the discussion, Richard Clement, CEO of Powertech (USA), Inc., was asked what guarantees Powertech could provide the people of Northern Colorado that their groundwater and environment would not be contaminated by Powertech's proposed in-situ leach mining of uranium within the aquifer in Weld County.

Clement failed to directly answer this question and the request for his company's guarantees by referring to Powertech's being required to comply with state mining regulations. Clement failed to acknowledge that Powertech would have primary and most immediate responsibility for preventing contamination of our groundwater if the company's plans to mine uranium in the aquifer in Weld County are approved.

During the discussion, I wanted, but was unable, to ask Clement to explain what caused exploratory well-drilling for a similar in-situ leach mining project in Goliad County, Texas, to contaminate that county's groundwater. Currently, the Goliad County government is suing the mining company that drilled the wells (Uranium Energy Corp.) for having ruined the county's water.

Perhaps, Clement can explain what caused the contamination of Goliad County's water by writing a letter to this newspaper. In doing so, maybe Clement can publicly offer Powertech's guarantees that any similar contamination will not happen to our water.

John S. Dixon,

Fort Collins

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20090430/OPINION03/904300335

BHP to 'dump mine tailings on ground'

Gavin Lower | May 01, 2009

BHP BILLITON plans to store radioactive mine tailings from its proposed Olympic Dam expansion on the surface, rather than return the material to the pit as the Northern Territory's Ranger uranium mine is required to do, a key environmental group says.

Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear-free campaigner David Noonan said yesterday the company's plan, coming on the eve of the public release of the 3750-page draft environmental impact statement for the expansion, could see the company create the world's largest radioactive tailings pile over the life of the mine.

"I understand the BHP EIS will set out the company plan to accumulate and store the radioactive mine tailings on the surface and to leave those tailings on the surface in perpetuity," he said.

"BHP have told me that what they intend to do with their tailings is not put it back into the pit."

A company spokesman said yesterday he could not comment on the contents of the EIS.

BHP Billiton proposes to turn its Olympic Dam copper, gold and uranium mine, 560km north of Adelaide, from an underground mine into an open-cut operation.

Mr Noonan said the BHP plan would be in contrast to existing regulations governing the Ranger mine and a Labor Party pledge before the last election to follow world best practice for uranium mining.

He said tailings, the waste product of mining operations, at Ranger are required to be returned to the pit at the end of the mine's life, expected to be 2021, and then steps taken to ensure the tailings did not have a detrimental impact on the environment for at least 10,000 years.

According to figures publicly available, Mr Noonan said the proposed expansion of Olympic Dam would produce 70 million tonnes of radioactive mine tailings each year, significantly more than the 10 million tonnes of radioactive tailings now produced each year.

"If they're simply left at the surface, that material would be prone to erosion and spread into the environment," he said.

BHP Billiton stores its tailings above ground at Olympic Dam.

Mr Noonan said the ACF expected the commonwealth to require BHP Billiton to return the radioactive tailings from the expanded Olympic Dam to the pit.

"We'd expect the commonwealth to set at least the same standard (as the Ranger mine) to isolate tailings from the environment for 10,000 years and expect BHP to say through the EIS how to isolate those tailings for 10,000 years to prevent detrimental environmental impacts," he said.

Mr Noonan said the mine tailings were a cocktail of radioactive elements and heavy metals, which have been processed to the consistency of powder.

"Why should the Big Australian be given a special dispensation to dispose of their radioactive tailings and leave it as a hazard for all future generations," he said.

A BHP Billiton spokesman said: "We have been operating safely for 20 years.

"Tailings contain extremely low levels of radiation and they are stored in accordance with very strict licensing conditions and fully regulated by the Environmental Protection Authority."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25411908-5006790,00.html

Why Not to Bet on Nuclear

By Jeff Siegel

In an effort to offer their own solution to our energy woes, some in Washington are declaring that if we're really committed to lowering electric bills and having clean air, then the U.S. should build 100 more nuclear power plants rather than spend billions in subsidies for renewable energy.

Following this announcement, I received a number of e-mails from folks who wanted to know my thoughts on this. After all, I am an advocate of clean energy generation, and many consider nuclear to fall into this category, as nuclear power plants don't carry the same carbon burden as coal-fired power plants.

Nuclear, however, does carry an environmental burden of uranium mining and of course, nuclear waste. So no, nuclear is not clean. But that's not my purpose for writing this today.

If you're a supporter of nuclear energy, my environmental take on this is not going to sway you. And that's fine. But for investors who continue to believe nuclear is the answer - well, they're going to be sorely disappointed. Because no matter how bad the bureaucrats in Washington want it (on both sides of the aisle), 100 new nuclear power plants will never happen in the U.S. Here's why...

Peak Uranium?

First there is the issue of uranium depletion. As my colleague, Chris Nelder, wrote in the book, Investing in Renewable Energy...

<>"The best ores of uranium have been mined, leaving mainly low-quality ores left to exploit. To the casual observer, this might seem at first like a ridiculous statement. Uranium is a very common element, found in about the same abundance as tin worldwide, in everything from granite to seawater. Almost all - 99.3 percent - of the uranium found on Earth is uranium-238, an isotope of uranium containing 238 protons per atom. The remaining uranium - 0.7 percent - is uranium-235, and that's what is used as fuel for our 'light water' nuclear reactors."

Nelder also hightlighted a 2006 study that was conducted by the Energy Watch Group. This particular report, "Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy," suggested that under best-case estimates, uranium production could peak before 2050. And that's based on today's rate of use, and doesn't include an additional 100 nuclear power plants.

Even the president and CEO of Cameco Corporation, Gerald Grandey, told reporters at a 2007 press conference that he expects demand to grow at 3 percent annually for the next decade, but doesn't see uranium mining being able to keep pace with demand.

Waste Not, Want Not

There's also the issue of waste disposal.

Certainly by now you've heard about the Yucca Mountain Repository. This is where all of our spent nuclear fuel and waste is supposed to be stored.

Last year, it turned out that the Yucca Mountain repository would cost $96.2 billion (in 2007 dollars), with 80 percent of that cost falling on the ratepayers.

While these bureaucrats sit there and make the claim that we should build all these nuclear power plants instead of spending billions in subsidies for renewable energy, they conveniently forget the $77 billion that ratepayers may already have to shell out just to store 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, that technically still doesn't have a home. Certainly this is a not a cost that consumers or investors should ignore.

And we haven't even gotten to the construction costs on these things.

A 2008 report from the Congressional Budget Office found that on construction costs, you're looking at $144.6 billion (in 1990 dollars) for 75 nuclear power plants. That's $235.3 billion today. And according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the estimated cost on a 1,000 megawatt reactor could run as high as $7.5 billion!

The typical budget for a 20 MW geothermal project constructed by geothermal developer, Ormat Technologies (NYSE:ORA), is around $70 million. Or $3.5 billion for 1,000 megawatts.

Of course, with that geothermal power plant, you also have the added benefit of no waste disposal costs, no uranium costs, and no billion-dollar decommissioning costs. And geothermal power plants, by the way, also have a capacity factor around 90 percent - or about the same as a nuclear power plant.

Bottom line: 100 nuclear power plants is nothing more than a political pissing contest. For the sake of long-term, sustainable growth - nuclear offers little more than high-priced energy, a wealth of environmental headaches, and fat campaign contributions in Washington.

And it sure as hell won't help consumers with electricity costs either.

http://www.matternetwork.com/2009/4/why-bet-nuclear.cfm

Subcomittee set to hear final recommendation for uranium study

By John Crane

Published: April 30, 2009

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee will hear a final recommendation later this month on the scope of a study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the commonwealth.

The meeting will include public comment and will be held at 2:30 p.m. May 21 in House Room D in the General Assembly Building in Richmond.

Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill about six miles northeast of Chatham.

Virginia has a moratorium on uranium mining and milling. If the study finds it can be done safely in the state, the General Assembly would have to vote whether to lift the moratorium.

Michael Karmis, director of Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research, will present his final recommendation on the study’s scope May 21, said David Bovenizer, spokesman for Del. Lee Ware, chair of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee. Karmis’s recommendation will include input from the National Academy of Science.

In March, the subcommittee unanimously approved a draft of the study’s first phase outlining the technical and scientific aspects of the analysis Karmis said would take about 18 months. The technical half of the study will look at global, national and state supply/demand trends and projections, as well as costs and market aspects.

Study topics also will include uranium mining and milling technologies, local groundwater and surface-water monitoring, mine-site monitoring, and post-mining land use and monitoring.

However, the second portion of the study, which would address the socioeconomic aspects of uranium mining and milling, were not decided at the March meeting.

Bovenizer said the subcommittee hopes to receive Karmis’s recommendation and post it on the VCEC’s Web site between May 4 and May 7.

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/subcomittee_set_to_hear_final_recommendation_for_uranium_study/10716/

Uranium Subcommittee to Meet May 21

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:30 AM EDT

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission subcommittee studying the dangers and benefits of uranium mining will meet Thursday, May 21, in Richmond.

The meeting, which is open to the public, will begin at 2:30 p.m. in House Room D, said Del. Lee Ware of Powhatan, chairman of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee.

Dr. Michael Karmis will present the National Academy of Science's recommendations for the final scope of the study.

Karmis is a professor in the Department of Mining and Minerals Engineering and director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg.

He presented the proposed study draft to the subcommittee in March after reviewing information from two earlier public hearings, including one in Chatham.

The National Academy of Science is expected to present its recommendations by May 4.

"Accordingly, these recommendations will be made available for review on the Coal and Energy Commission's Web site well in advance of the meeting," Ware said.

The May 21 meeting also will include time for public comment, the chairman said.

At the subcommittee's last meeting, members voted unanimously to proceed with a tentative draft of the study's objectives.

Once approved, the study is expected to take about two years.

In addition to Ware, members of the subcommittee include Del. Watkins Abbitt of Appomattox, Sen. John Watkins of Midlothian, Del. William R. Janis of Glen Allen, Del. Charles W. Carrico Sr. of Galax, Sen. Phillip P. Puckett of Tazewell, Del. Clarence E. Phillips of Castlewood, Del. Kristen J. Amundson of Fairfax County, Sen. Frank Wagner of Virginia Beach and Harry D. Childress.

Childress, a citizen member on the Coal and Energy Commission, is the former head of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy.

Abbitt was a member of the original commission that studied uranium mining in the 1980s.

The commission's chairman, Del. Terry Kilgore of Scott County, also serves on the subcommittee as an ex-officio member.

Pittsylvania County is home to one of the largest uranium deposits in the United States.

The Coles Hill uranium deposit, about six miles northeast of Chatham, was discovered in the early 1980s.

In 2007, the Coles and Bowen families, who own the ore, formed Virginia Uranium Inc. in hopes of mining the uranium, which at that time was worth between $8 billion and $10 billion.

Before the deposit can be mined, however, the General Assembly would have to lift Virginia's moratorium on uranium mining, which has been in place since 1982.

The Uranium Mining Subcommittee held a public hearing at Chatham High School in early January to receive input on the study. More than 400 people attended the meeting.

The study objectives are "to assess the scientific and technical aspects of uranium mining, milling and processing in Virginia and associated environmental, human health, safety and regulatory issues."

According to the draft, the study will consider uranium supply and demand trends and projections, worldwide uranium deposits and operations, and uranium mining, milling and processing technologies.

It also will take into account occupational and public health and safety, environmental considerations, social and economic impacts, and security standards and procedures.

tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/04/30/chatham/news/news50.txt

Public forum to outline community's right to block uranium mining

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:35 PM EDT

The anti-uranium group The Alliance will sponsor a public forum for residents and elected officials titled "Who Decides Whether Southside Virginia will be Sacrificed for Uranium Mining?" Friday, May 1, at 7 p.m. at Chatham High School.

The forum will be presented by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a Pennsylvania-based community rights organization.

"Who decides whether the people of Southside Virginia should have to endure uranium mining and its catastrophic impacts on human health and our environment - the citizens or the corporate officers of Virginia Uranium Inc., enabled by the Virginia legislature?" said Shireen Parsons, an organizer for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund and adviser to The Alliance.

"That's the question that will be posed to the citizens and elected officials of the Southside communities that would be directly affected by the proposed mine in Pittsylvania County," she said.

Presenting the case for decision-making by the people will be attorney Thomas Linzey, founder and executive director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund and Mari Margill, associate director of the Legal Defense Fund.

Since 1995, the Legal Defense Fund has assisted community groups and local governments in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, Washington state and Virginia draft municipal ordinances that prohibit corporate activities determined by the citizens to be a threat to their health, safety, environment and quality of life.

Ordinances have tackled issues including mining, ground water withdrawals, factory farms, land application of sewage sludge and corporate waste dumping.

Last year, Halifax became the first town in Virginia to adopt a chemical trespass ordinance aimed at uranium mining.

Chatham considered a similar ordinance, but abandoned the idea following an attorney general's opinion that the law is unconstitutional.

Friday night's presentation will bring the necessity for action to the forefront, said Parsons, who lives in Christiansburg.

"Gathering data, writing to legislators, petitioning regulatory agencies, testifying at public hearings - these are not self-governing activities, but grievance procedures," she said.

Participants will learn about the origins of rights-based community organizing, about the structure of law - including Dillon's Rule - that prohibits communities from saying "no," what has been achieved in Virginia and in other states, and the next steps in rights-based organizing in Pittsylvania County and other Southside communities.

"There is no hero waiting in the wings to save our communities from ruin," said Parsons. "We are the ones we have been waiting for. The time is now. "

The Alliance is led by Gregg Vickrey, who previously served as chairman of the Chatham-Pittsylvania County Chapter of Southside Concerned Citizens.

Southside Concerned Citizens was formed 30 years ago when one of the largest uranium deposits in the United States was discovered in Pittsylvania County.

The Coles Hill deposit, about six miles northeast of Chatham, is worth between $8 billion and $10 billion.

Three years ago, the Coles and Bowen families, who own the land and ore, formed Virginia Uranium Inc. to explore the possibility of mining uranium.

Virginia has had a moratorium on uranium mining since 1982.

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission recently agreed to study the dangers and benefits of uranium mining.

The study, which is just getting under way, is expected to take about two years.

Last week, The Alliance launched a petition aimed at forcing the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors to ban uranium mining.

If supervisors refuse, they will have rendered themselves "illegitimate" under the Virginia Constitution, the petition states.

The Alliance then plans to ask residents to elect 11 representatives to draft a constitution for the county that bans uranium mining while recognizing the right to community self-government.

County residents would be asked to ratify the constitution.

If supervisors fail to adopt the constitution, it would "automatically become the new governing law of the county" and a mandate for new elected representatives.

"This is democracy built from the ground up," said Parsons.

The Alliance hopes to get a majority of county residents - at least 30,000 - to sign the petition before presenting it to supervisors.

County Administrator Dan Sleeper called the petition misguided and said there is no such thing as a county constitution.

tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/04/30/chatham/news/news46.txt

GOVERNOR KAINE, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY FORGE NEW AGREEMENT TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES

Am I the only one that's becoming more afraid of Tim Kaine every time I read about some new energy alliance he's entered? Are we sure he understands that uranium is not a renewable energy source?

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Office of the Governor

Timothy M. Kaine FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Governor April 28, 2009

Contact: Gordon Hickey
Phone: (804) 225-4260
Cell Phone: (804) 291-8977
Internet: www.governor.virginia.gov

GOVERNOR KAINE, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY FORGE NEW AGREEMENT TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES

~ Virginia strengthens participation in Germany’s “Transatlantic Climate Bridge” in global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote community energy planning, and promote low-carbon technologies ~

RICHMOND—Governor Timothy M. Kaine and Germany’s Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Sigmar Gabriel, signed a bilateral Joint Declaration at the German Embassy today that commits each government to the common goals of combating the effects of climate change, achieving greater energy efficiency, collaborating on energy research and development initiatives, and developing a more climate-friendly economy. This is the second bilateral climate change agreement signed by Governor Kaine. In February, Governor Kaine signed a similar agreement with the United Kingdom .

“ Virginia is pleased to have been a principal U.S. state to collaborate with Germany on global warming and energy security issues,” Governor Kaine said. “Our work together has materialized over the past year in meetings in Berlin , Washington , D.C., and Richmond . Today, I am pleased that we are formalizing our ongoing working relationship.”

Virginia was represented in Berlin in September 2008 by Secretary of Natural Resources L. Preston Bryant, Jr., when Germany formally launched its Transatlantic Climate Bridge initiative. The Transatlantic Climate Bridge seeks to establish partnerships between Germany and certain U.S. states to develop economic and energy strategies designed to mitigate the effects of global warming.

In December 2008, Secretary Bryant and Secretary of Commerce and Trade Patrick O. Gottschalk signed an initial agreement with Germany ’s Ambassador to the United States , Dr. Klaus Scharioth, outlining interim goals in collaborations on community energy planning, renewable energy research, and green jobs initiatives.

"Energy efficiency and renewable energies are a success story in Germany , both in terms of climate protection and jobs,” Minister Gabriel said. “Today, renewables are providing 15 percent of our energy supplies, and we have created 280,000 new jobs in this growing industry. In implementing our goal to bring German GHG emissions down to 40 percent below 1990 levels until 2020, we will double the share of renewables up to 30 percent and raise the number of jobs to 500,000 in this sector. We are happy to cooperate with the Commonwealth of Virginia across the Atlantic to promote energy efficiency, renewable energies and low-carbon technologies."

Under the Joint Declaration signed today by Governor Kaine and Minister Gabriel, Virginia and Germany agree to:

• Exchange data and best practices on market-based emissions trading systems and the potential of linking to a U.S. cap-and-trade system at the federal level;
  
  
  
• Work together to develop and apply renewable energy technologies, specifically in solar photovoltaic, offshore wind, and geothermal energy;
  
  
  
• Create new economic development opportunities for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and low-carbon technologies;
  
  
  
• Improve the exchange and application of best management practices on community energy planning, starting with ongoing work between the Northern Virginia Regional Commission and certain regional partners in Germany ;
  
  
  
• Advance collaborative research between Virginia universities and private-sector firms and certain German public and private institutions and agencies, starting with Virginia Tech’s clean combustion laboratory and the Deutsches Zentrum fuer Luft- und Raumfahrt to promote clean combustion technologies.

As Virginia and Germany work together on strategies to combat global warming, their governments will seek opportunities to share relevant research and encourage trade in alternative and renewable energy technologies. In particular, the Joint Declaration signed today advances a number of recommendations made by the Governor’s Commission on Climate Change launched in 2007 by Executive Order 59. It emphasizes the importance of a market-based cap-and-trade program designed to limit carbon dioxide emissions that are contributing to the earth’s warming as well as broadening Virginia ’s renewable energy capabilities.

The Virginia-Germany Joint Declaration also recognizes the two governments share research interests and assets, especially in offshore renewable energy production. The Virginia Energy Plan, released by Governor Kaine in September 2007, encourages research and development of the state’s coastal resources for energy production – including offshore wind, current, and marine biomass production. Virginia ’s colleges and universities and the Virginia Costal Energy Research Consortium are considered leaders in the development of this technology domestically while Germany is recognized internationally as a leader in offshore wind energy research and production as well as solar photovoltaic energy development and deployment.

Today’s announcement comes as Governor Kaine continues to move his “Renew Virginia ” initiative. Renew Virginia is focused on promoting renewable energy, creating green jobs, and encouraging preservation of the environment.

For more information on Renew Virginia , visit www.governor.virginia.gov.

Uranium Mining Subcommittee of the Coal and Energy Commission Meeting in Richmond on May 21

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
RICHMOND

April 27, 2009

MEETING NOTICE

TO:	Uranium Mining Subcommittee of the Coal and Energy Commission
FROM:	William L.Owen, House Committee Operations
RE:	Meeting Date/Time/Place

Please be advised that the Uranium Mining Subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy will meet on Thursday, May 21, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. in House Room D In the General Assembly Building in Richmond, Virginia.

Should you have questions regarding the meeting agenda, please call Ellen Porter with the Division of Legislative Services at (804) 786-3591. If you are unable to attend this meeting , please call House Committee Operations at (804) 698-1540 or contact me via e-mail bowen@house.virginia.gov

Companies that want to build new nuclear reactors

Sometimes, "wantin'" ain't "gettin'". Let's hope that's the case with these companies.

A list of companies that have announced their intent to submit applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for new plant licenses:

_ Alternate Energy Holdings/Unistar: One unit in Elmore County, Idaho

_ Amarillo Power/Unistar: One unit in vicinity of Amarillo, Texas

_ AmerenUE/Unistar: One unit in Callaway County, Mo.

_ Constellation/Unistar: One unit in Calvert County, Md.

_ Constellation/Unistar: One unit in Oswego County, N.Y.

_ Detroit Edison: One unit in Frenchtown Township, Mich.

_ Dominion: One unit in Louisa County, Va.

_ Duke: Two units in Cherokee County, S.C.

_ Duke: Undetermined number of units in Davie County, N.C.

_ Duke: Undetermined number of units in Oconee County, S.C.

_ Entergy: Undetermined number of units in West Felciana Parish, La.

_ Entergy: Undetermined number of units in Claiborne County, Miss.

_ Exelon: Undetermined number of units in Clinton, Ill.

_ Exelon: Undetermined number of units in Victoria County, Texas

_ Florida Power & Light: Two units in Miami-Dade County, Fla.

_ Luminant: Two units in Glen Rose, Texas.

_ NRG Energy/STPNOC: Two units in Matagorda County, Texas.

_ PPL Corp./Unistar: One unit in Luzerne County, Pa.

_ Progress Energy: Two units in Wake County, N.C.

_ Progress Energy: Two units in Levy County, Fla.

_ PSEG: Undetermined number of units in Lower Alloways Creek, N.J.

_ South Carolina Electric & Gas: Two units in Fairfield County, S.C.

_ Southern Co.: Two units in Burke County, Ga.

_ TVA/NuStart Energy: Two units in Jackson County, Ala.

AmerenUE has suspended plans for the project.

Source: Nuclear Energy Institute

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hseV2uTa_zBiS70JyoX-WYjiIqTQD97RLF3O1

Uranium, energy big issues at forum

By John Crane

Published: April 28, 2009

Approximately 200 people turned out Tuesday to hear the three contenders for the Democratic nomination for governor — Creigh Deeds, Brian Moran and Terry McAuliffe — in a forum at the Institute for Advanced Learning & Research.

The Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership at the University of Virginia and the Danville Register & Bee were hosts of the forum, which was moderated by Danville’s former Mayor Linwood Wright and Bob Gibson, executive director of the Sorensen Institute.

The forum is part of an ongoing series of events the Sorensen Institute sponsors in Danville.

On uranium

•McAuliffe said public safety is the No. 1 issue. He said we have to protect the environment, but he supports a study to determine whether uranium mining can be done safely. Mining and milling at Coles Hill could provide “40 years worth of jobs,” he said.

•Moran said “This is one you can’t get wrong.” There are water sources near Coles Hill, and the study must be independent, objective and not paid for by those who stand to profit from mining, he said.

• Deeds said he has serious reservations about whether uranium can be safely mined but said he supports the study to determine that.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/uranium_energy_big_issues_at_forum/10666/

Surviving family: Penalties don't deter unsafe workplaces

By DUSTIN BLEIZEFFEER
Star-Tribune energy reporter

Sunday, April 26, 2009 2:06 AM MDT

Philip L. Robidoux's last stop was at the top of a ridge at the Smith Ranch uranium mine near Douglas to pick up his lunch pail in September 1999. From there, he aimed the '78 Mack Super Liner with tanker, loaded with water, on the dirt road and followed it down the ridge toward the well field.

"The drill crew noticed that the truck was not slowing down as it should in order to make the turn into the well field," according to a federal Mine Safety and Health Administration report.

The truck left the road, bounced through a stormwater ditch and came to a sudden stop in a gully. The truck frame snapped, folding the truck and smashing the cab, killing the 37-year-old Robidoux.

MSHA concluded that Pronghorn Drilling Co. had failed to maintain the truck in safe operating condition. There were no front brakes, and "All the brake drums were oversize and severely scored, resulting in compromised braking force at all four brakes," according to the report.

For Robidoux's family, the accident revealed that the penalty doesn't meet the degree of negligence when it comes to workplace fatalities in Wyoming.

"He wasn't just a brother. He was my best friend," said Robidoux's sister, Renee Treloar.

Contacted by the Star-Tribune, former owners of Pronghorn Drilling declined to comment. Pronghorn faced several MSHA citations and significant financial penalties as a result of the accident, but the company maintained its innocence.

Pronghorn eventually won a court ruling that MSHA didn't have jurisdiction in the matter because in-situ uranium mining is more like an oil and gas operation than a traditional mine. MSHA's findings in the case were not reversed, but by the time the case was transferred to the Wyoming Occupational Health and Safety Administration, Pronghorn had gone out of business.

Treloar said she and her family lost Philip, and the only result was a few thousand dollars paid by the Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division for his burial costs.

"If they are grossly negligent, they need to be held accountable. Right now, there is no incentive to be safe," Treloar said.

On the civil rights side, an employee's right to sue was taken away in exchange for no-fault coverage under the state's workers compensation program. Regardless of who is at fault for an accident, workers compensation covers medical costs and lost wages for on-the-job injuries, and burial and death benefits in fatalities.

When it comes to safety violations and imposing penalties, it usually falls to MSHA for mining operations and OSHA for most other workplaces.

OSHA-imposed penalties related to recent oil and gas industry fatalities range from as little as nothing, to $100, to $19,250, according to OSHA records. Often, a company ends up paying a couple thousand dollars for safety violations that have resulted in a fatality.

Regulatory officials explain that monetary penalties are not set with retribution in mind. The same penalty can be assessed for a safety violation that does not result in an injury or death.

It's an effective regulatory scheme for the majority of employers who already understand that safe workplaces help their bottom line and are in everyone's best interest. But for those determined to cut corners, the savings may seem to outweigh the risk, according to Treloar.

She said she worries that without the prospect of hefty financial penalties, some companies might be tempted to gamble with safety, particularly in this down economy.

"There's just no motivation for them to be safe if they don't want to be," Treloar said.

Energy reporter Dustin Bleizeffer can be reached at (307) 577-6069 or dustin.bleizeffer@trib.com.

All emphases mine...SB

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2009/04/27/news/wyoming/73600d7a62090f55872575a300212694.txt

The Alliance’s tough talk on wrong road

By Published by The Editorial Board

Danville Register & Bee

Published: April 26, 2009

The Alliance, one of the groups fighting a proposed uranium mine in Pittsylvania County, hopes a petition it’s circulating will eventually be signed by tens of thousands of county residents.

Once The Alliance has signed petitions in hand, it will present them to the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors — and give supervisors just three months to do the right thing.

What’s the right thing?

In this case, that means banning uranium mining in the county.

If the Board of Supervisors doesn’t, it will not “… represent the majority of the people in the county …” and it will become “… illegitimate under the Virginia Constitution …,” the petition states.

“Our goal is not to stop uranium,” said Shireen Parsons, an organizer with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund. “Our goal is to seize local governing authority.”

We’re not sure the Board of Supervisors has that legal authority to ban uranium mining, regardless of how individual members may feel about it or what their constituents are saying.

For that matter, we don’t think 30,000 to 40,000 people in one of the most conservative Republican counties in Virginia will sign a petition that would put their county’s government in the hands of The Alliance and other anti-uranium mining groups, regardless of how those residents feel about uranium mining.

Finally, we’re not sure how county residents really feel about uranium mining. If we had to guess, we’d say most of them are skeptical of Virginia Uranium’s plans but want more information.

But in tone and tactics, The Alliance is making a big mistake.

Uranium mining has been an environmental disaster all over the world. Pittsylvania County residents — and everyone in the Dan River Region — have good reason to be concerned about a uranium mine at Coles Hill. But even people who are against uranium mining should be concerned with The Alliance’s my-way-or-the-highway bullying.

Virginia Uranium has to prove that its project won’t harm the environment, the economy and the future of Pittsylvania County. The company has to overcome decades of mistakes by the uranium mining industry and deep skepticism of modern mining methods.

Virginia Uranium also has a large Canadian partner and paid lobbyists making its case in Richmond. The company is represented by a professional public relations firm and makes campaign contributions to the state’s politicians. While those things are common characteristics of modern companies, they are the kind of things that make people even more suspicious.

In contrast, the local uranium mining opponents are citizen volunteers spending their own time and money to oppose VUI.

We can all respect the passion and commitment members of The Alliance bring to this debate. But the group has taken a wrong turn and risks alienating more people than it could ever hope to bring to its side. They need to tear up their petition.

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/editorials/danville_editorials/article/the_alliances_tough_talk_on_wrong_road/10654/

Mount Taylor named an endangered historic site

The National Trust for Historic Preservation named New Mexico’s Mount Taylor to its 2009 list of America’s 11 most endangered historic places.

Mount Taylor is a peak of nearly 12,000 feet in the San Mateo Mountains between Albuquerque and Gallup. Many American Indian tribes view the mountain as a sacred place, and the National Trust believes it is endangered because of uranium-mining efforts in the area.

The mountain sits on the Grants Uranium Belt, known as a rich reserve of uranium ore. The area already went through two mining booms in the 1950s and 1970s, and demand for uranium has renewed interest in mining it in New Mexico. The state Mining and Minerals Division continually receives proposals for exploration and mining operations at Mount Taylor, the National Trust says.

If the mining were allowed to proceed, it “would have a devastating impact on this cherished historic place,” the National Trust said in a press release.

The mountain has been a pilgrimage site for up to 30 different tribes, especially nearby Acoma Pueblo, the Trust said. Mount Taylor is 50 miles from Acoma Sky City, a National Trust Historic Site. Centuries ago, the Acoma called the mountain Kaweshtima, which means “place of snow.”

Since 1988, the National Trust has issued its annual list of most endangered historic places in an effort to inspire public interest in preserving the sites. Over the years, the list has included sites ranging from a single rural building to an entire community or urban neighborhood.

Other places on the 2009 list include the Utah hangar that houses the Enola Gay bomber, which dropped the world’s first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan; Los Angeles’ Century Plaza Hotel, designed by the architect who later designed the twin towers of the World Trade Center; and the cast-iron storefront district in Galveston, Texas, damaged by flooding from Hurricane Ike.

http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2009/04/27/daily19.html

Quick! Go To Gazette-Virginian To Vote on Mining Study!

The current issue of the Gazette-Virginian currently posts this question on which you can vote online:

Uranium poll

Will the uranium mining study as outlined by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission sufficiently address the safety and environmental questions associated with the issue?


http://www.gazettevirginian.com/

Currently the "YES" votes are seriously outnumbering the "NO" votes!

An Announcement from Santoy Resources Ltd and Virginia Uranium Ltd

http://www.virginiauranium.com/

Welcome to Virginia Uranium, Inc. Come explore this site with us as we begin the process of bringing the energy benefits of uranium to our nation and the economic benefits of uranium development to Southside Virginia.

Our affiliate company, Virginia Uranium Ltd., is merging with Santoy Resources Ltd. with closing expected in May, 2009. The new merged company will have an approximate 20% indirect ownership interest in the Coles Hill project. Santoy is currently listed on the Toronto Venture Stock Exchange and trades under the symbol SAN. Click here for transaction overview.

Lots of old news but a firmer date!

A Key Energy Industry Nervously Awaits Its 'Rebirth'

Governor Kaine appears quite misguided...do we need to start sending him educational materials?

By PETER BEHR, ClimateWire

Published: April 27, 2009

One of the biggest question marks in the nation's energy and climate policy is the future of nuclear power. In the past, the United States has made a major commitment to it. The U.S. nuclear power industry is the world's largest. The nation's 104 operating plants produce 20 percent of its electricity, making them, by far, the largest source of electricity that does not result in greenhouse gas emissions.

If a cap and a price are imposed on carbon dioxide emissions, these plants could be among the biggest economic winners in the vast economic shifts that would be created by greenhouse gas regulations.

But the future of the industry may still hang precariously on decisions made by the Obama administration, in which multiple issues remain unsettled. While former President George W. Bush joined the industry's chorus proclaiming that a "nuclear renaissance" is under way, President Obama has approached the issue with his lawyer's penchant for nuance, caution and opacity as he listens to conflicting voices within his administration.

"The president needs to show his cards on nuclear energy," said energy consultant Joseph Stanislaw, a Duke University professor. "He cannot keep this industry, which must make investments with a 50-year or longer horizon, in limbo for much longer."

To be sure, the "limbo" he refers to isn't just a policy matter. The industry faces political, legal and technological issues in the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The economics of nuclear power, including the future costs of new plants, appear to be the biggest current hurdle.

The most-cited evidence for the "renaissance" is that U.S. energy companies have filed 17 applications with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for 26 new reactor operating licenses. On Friday, the first of these fell by the wayside. A Missouri utility, AmerenUE, said it was suspending plans to build its proposed plant because the state Legislature would not allow it to charge consumers for some of the project's costs before the plant's completion. Without that "financial and regulatory certainty," the company said it couldn't proceed.

On the other hand, the industry's political acceptance has improved since the 1990s, when new power plant construction stopped as if dead. A shift in the policy debate to climate change mitigation has helped the industry make its case. The availability of nuclear power reduces U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 680 million tons a year, says Paul Genoa, policy director for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the industry. "It's a big number -- roughly equivalent to all the CO2 emissions from our passenger [vehicle] fleet," Genoa says.

An industry with a new, international face

The new face of the U.S. nuclear industry that is emerging will have a number of foreign players eager to stake their claim. Virginia officials rolled out the carpet in October for the French energy company Areva and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, which plan to build a $363 million manufacturing plant in Newport News to make nuclear reactor components. More than 500 employees would be at work by 2012, the companies said. "This joint venture project is tremendous news for Virginia," said Gov. Tim Kaine (D), whose state holds large uranium deposits. (emphasis mine...SB)

Today, 40 nuclear plants are under construction in 11 countries, led by China, South Korea, Japan and Russia, according to the World Nuclear Association. "Nuclear energy is going to be used," asserted William Magwood IV, a physicist who directed nuclear programs in the Department of Energy under both former Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. "People underestimate how quickly this is going to happen." Internationally, more than 100 nuclear reactors are planned and more thans 250 have been proposed.

Climate concerns led Congress to approve $18.5 billion in federal loan guarantees in 2005 to support construction of perhaps a half-dozen new nuclear plants that are meant to demonstrate new, safer and more efficient reactor designs. The guarantees would cover up to 80 percent of project costs. The 2005 Energy Policy Act also provided a limited production tax credit for a few new nuclear facilities. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is following a new licensing process designed to speed the review process and prevent recurring environmental challenges.

The first few new plants, aided crucially by the 2005 financial incentives, could be in operation by 2015-17, industry officials say. But the industry's U.S. 'renaissance' could well stop there unless more favorable economic and political conditions appear. "The industry's success in the coming years will turn largely on money, attention to detail, and an ability to earn and retain the trust of all its stakeholders," said Roland Frye Jr., a senior NRC appellate attorney, writing in the Energy Law Journal last year.

Obama's 'agnosticism': maybe, maybe not

Perhaps the most critical issue is whether President Obama will be among those stakeholders. Obama called himself an "agnostic" on the issue during the 2007 presidential primary campaign. "I'm not somebody who says nuclear is off the table no matter what, because there's no perfect energy source," Obama told editors of New Hampshire's Keene Sentinel newspaper.

Read the rest of this most interesting article here: http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/04/27/27climatewire-a-key-energy-industry-nervously-awaits-its-r-10677.html

Addressing the Uranium Mining Hype (Guest Post)

"Drew" does an interesting blog called "Dem Bones". You can find an excellent guest post to his blog on the "hype" surrounding the potential uranium mining in VA here:

http://dembones-dembones.blogspot.com/2009/04/addressing-uranium-mining-hype-guest.html

It starts out, "I hope one day to meet Joe Bouchard and hear more about what he says to answer the questions that were posed in this article. In the meantime, I have my own answers and a few questions about points made in that article."

Take a look...it's thought-provoking!

Radioactive Milkshake!

From our friend Mark Krueger near Goliad, TX...a lesson in the dangers of in-situ mining for the younger, hipper set. And for those of us who get lost in even reasonably simple scientific explanations. Very clever! Thanks, Mark!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwrD0-2xUm0

Mark's commentary: A beautiful concoction of Goliad sand, hydrogen peroxide and soda ash. Do I consent to the injection of this lixiviant into my drinking water for the "greater good of America"? NO, I DO NOT!

Braidwood nuclear reactor shut down, malfuction repaired

April 26, 2009

A malfunctioning cooling system control at Exelon Nuclear's Braidwood Generating Station that triggered an automatic shutdown of one of the plant's two nuclear reactors Friday evening has been repaired.

Braidwood Generating Station communications manager Paul Dempsey said repairs were completed at 7:30 p.m. on Saturday, when the reactor was placed back in service. The incident caused no environmental impact, injuries or any disruption of service, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was notified of the malfunction, Dempsey said.

The automatic shutdown was triggered when two of four of the electronic panels that monitor temperatures for the cooling system were disabled. The cooling system helps regulate the nuclear reaction in the reaction chamber to make sure uranium fuel rods don't get too hot -- which in the most severe case could cause a meltdown.

Dempsey said one of the electric panels malfunctioned while another was down for regular maintenance. The automatic shutdown slows down the nuclear reaction so the fuel rods cool quickly. It is triggered when two of the four panels are not operating.

The second nuclear reactor at the station continued to operate normally while repairs were made on the reactor that shut down, Dempsey said. Exelon had finished major maintenance and refueling of the operating reactor just last Sunday. Dempsey said "that one is 100 percent."

The last automatic shutdown at Braidwood Generating Station was triggered on Dec. 27, 2008 when an electrical fault in a non-nuclear section of the generating station triggered a shut down, Dempsey said.

-- Jon Krenek and Bill Byrns

http://daily-journal.com/archives/dj/display.php?id=439234

Editorial: Virginia Museum Natural History Awards Are Honors

)Congratulations to the Dan River Basin Association and to all the recipients of this Award!

Sunday, April 26, 2009

The Virginia Museum of Natural History’s Thomas Jefferson Awards

are the only awards of their kind to be offered in Virginia. They are unique

in that they are related to the former president and his work as

one of the earliest naturalists in Virginia and the nation.

The awards were presented Wednesday to six people,

companies and organizations to honor their support of

and contributions to natural history.

Recipients were Dr. Cleveland P. Hickman Jr., professor

emeritus of biology at Washington and Lee University;

Anne Boschen Wright,coordinator of life sciences outreach

education at Virginia Commonwealth University;

Boxley Materials Co. for,especially, donating and delivering

a 6-foot stromatolite, the first intact one found in Virginia;

long-time volunteer Ward Littlefield; the Dan River Basin

Association,which promotes ideas of the museum through

its numerous projects;and the Martinsville Bulletin,

for its coverage of the museum since its inception in 1984.

These people and organizations are dedicated to preserving,

enhancing and reporting on the state’s natural resources, and

each recipient noted that it was an honor to be given

a Jefferson award.

We thank the museum for sponsoring these awards and recognizing

the work being done around Virginia to learn from its past and protect its future.

http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/article.cfm?ID=18640

Uranium is Dangerous

Excellent letter from Katie Whitehead From the Martinsville Bulletin

Uranium is dangerous

Sunday, April 26, 2009 Statements attributed to a Virginia Museum ofNatural History curator and geologist supports uranium mining (in a Bulletin article April 1) are disturbing. If accurately quoted, they call for rebuttal: 1. “Uranium has this aura of horribleness around it, but it’s not that toxic.” Uranium is toxic. So are the products it produces from radioactive decay. Radiation and heavy metal toxicity are legitimate concerns when considering mining and milling uranium and storing tailings. The “aura of horribleness” is itself an important issue. Already, people’s perceptions of uranium mining are affecting our region. The possibility of uranium development here is adversely influencing home buying decisions and business recruitment. 2. The substance does not become dangerous until it’s enriched. This statement is not true. Risks associated with exposure to uranium and its radioactive and heavy metal decay products vary depending on the sensitivity of the one exposed, the amount of exposure, the length of exposure, whether exposure is internal or external, what type of cells are exposed, etc. According to Dr. Doug Brugge, a public health expert at Tufts University School of Medicine, the necessary research has not been done to determine the health risks of exposure to heavy metals from living near uranium mines, mills and tailings. Preliminary results from new studies are reinforcing health concerns. 3. “I don’t think (contaminants leaching into groundwater) will be a problem” because the ore minerals are stable. Other geologists are less cocksure. Dr. Krishna Sinha of Virginia Tech has said the minerals are currently stable in the ground; but a robust, multi-year study would be required to determine what would happen to this stability if the ore is mined and milled. Mining involves removing the topsoil and blasting the rock. Milling involves crushing and pulverizing the ore and adding solvents. The point of milling the ore is to remove the uranium and leave the other elements behind. For each pound or two of uranium, there would be a ton of hazardous waste materials left at the mill site. The waste cannot be expected to be stable. The Dan River Basin Association is particularly concerned about the containment of this huge volume of waste. It is not enough to speculate about the probability of a leak. To begin to understand the risk, researchers would need to identify all of the contaminants in the tailings and understand how each would migrate and interact in the environment. 4. “If they determine it should be mined, I think it should be mined.” The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) does not make policy recommendations. Whether to mine uranium is not a scientific question. Nor will the NAS tell us whether it is safe to mine uranium and to attempt to contain the huge volume of milling waste. The National Academy will not accept “Is it safe?” as the basis for a scientific study. This is a policy question. The people of Virginia and elected representatives will decide — researchers will not discover — whether to lift the moratorium. Katie Whitehead Chairman, Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force Chatham http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/article.cfm?ID=18641 To read the article to which Katie's addressed her rebuttal, it's here: http://sccagainsturanium.blogspot.com/2009/04/geologist-supports-uranium-mining-at.html

Reasons Why the Uranium Mine Moratorium Must Stand

http://www.appomattoxnews.com/2009/reasons-why-the-uranium-mine-moratorium-must-stand.html/comment-page-1#comment-1604

You'll want to read this most interesting article. Its author, Linda Goin, raises some pertinent questions, including whether the exploratory drill holes at Coles Hill violate Virginia's mining moratorium. She makes excellent points...points that deserve further consideration.

Linda has lived near Uravan and Moab in Colorado. She's seen the devastation uranium mining causes up close...way up close. She has a familiarity with hydro-geology most of us don't have. Her words bear reading.

She promises future articles on the proposed Coles Hill project. Her blog, Appomattox Posterous, and her news site, Appomattox News are linked to this blog in the upper right side-bar. Take a look...read her commentary. I think you'll find her words thought-provoking.

Watch CCAT's Short Film "YELLOWCAKE" -- EXCELLENT!

DOCUMENTARY DESCRIPTION

From Exploration to fuel production, this documentary relates the contamination, water consumption, waste generation, costs to the American taxpayer through government subsidies, health impacts,and the CO2 emissions that are caused by the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Each phase has its own devastating impact on the environment and the surrounding population, from socio-economic to health and safety. This film takes a deeper look into the facts that are, all too often, left unsaid.

America is going "Down the Yellowcake Road," but given this information, shouldn't we ask the necessary question: Is this what we really want?

Why We Made This Documentary

The full spectrum of the Uranium Industry and Nuclear Fuel Production has not been a part of the “Green” debate. We are addressing this lack of disclosure. Besides the Carbon Emissions, there is widespread toxic and radioactive contamination left behind. Water usage associated with nuclear power generation is exorbitant.

As the nuclear industry lobbies legislators and government agencies, they influence laws, regulations, and budgets. Their persuasive advertisements claim this energy is "Green." The entirety of the Fuel Production Cycle for reactors is never mentioned. Legislators are not made aware of contamination affecting people and the environment across the United States. The public is not aware of hidden costs, cracks in our protective regulatory systems, and the enormous government subsidies for construction of power plants and eventual clean up that comes at taxpayer expense.

What is GREEN about the URANIUM Industry that produces the fuel for NUCLEAR Power Plants? The answer is NOT-A-THING. The only stage that is somewhat "green" is when the Power Plant is producing electricity. However, coal-fired power plants take over when a nuclear plant is off line.

Communities around the United States and the Globe are under siege from proposed operations by the Nuclear Energy Industry. Often their voices are not heard. Beyond the lawsuits and cleanups, what is the real toll? County governments, in many cases, try to regulate what they don’t fully understand: risks to the population, and dangers of long-term contamination and waste management. Communities are left to respond to overwhelming lobbying forces from the Uranium Industry who have nearly unlimited funding, government subsidies, and long-entrenched lobbyists.

Our goal is to present the side of the story that goes untold, so that people will know when they flip the light switch, that this decision comes at a large cost to our land and to the American taxpayer. Our hope is that this documentary will provide information that will allow citizens to make a more educated decision about their energy future.

Colorado Citizens Against ToxicWaste, Inc.
P O Box 964
Canon City, CO 81215

info@downtheyellowcakeroad.org

Find this excellent video here: http://www.downtheyellowcakeroad.org/

Radiation Exposure from 50 Years of Uranium Mining Continues to Affect Spokane Indian Reservation

Tailings pond with its tell-tale, eerie green glow.

We speak with Twa-le Abrahamson of the Spokane Indian Reservation, where the only uranium mining in Washington State took place. She helped found the SHAWL (Sovereignty, Health, Air, Water, and Land) Society, which addresses the impact of radiation exposure caused by over fifty years of uranium mining in the area. [includes rush transcript]

Watch the video here or read the transcript.

http://i1.democracynow.org/2009/4/21/radiation_exposure_from_50_years_of

Clean Energy Alliance Announces New Member

For Release: Immediate – Thursday, April 23, 2009

Contact: Dr. Pradeep Haldar, Chair, Clean Energy Alliance

(phone) 518‐437 8684; (e‐mail) phaldar@uamail.albany.edu

Virginia Clean Energy Business Incubator – 14th U. S. Business Incubator

Albany, NY – The Clean Energy Alliance (CEA) is pleased to announce the addition of the Virginia Clean Energy Business Incubator (VCEBI) as CEA’s 14th U.S. business incubator focusing on clean energy technology development. The Virginia Incubator is located within a 60,000 square foot facility at Riverstone Technology Park, a 165-acre site in Halifax County. The energy research, development, and commercialization initiative at Riverstone is led by Dr. Carole Cameron Inge of Virginia Tech. Capabilities available to support clean technology development and commercialization inclue state-of-the-art modeling and simulation tools, information technology, engineering design, broadband telecommunications, geospatial informatics, and two-way interactive telepresence technology. VCEBI’s initial clean technology projects focus on distributed energy grid technologies, TriGen power generation with cellulosic materials, agribusiness research looking at alternative crops as fuel sources with Virginia State University, and small wind technologies that have the potential to enable distributed wind power to be produced economically, even in low wind regimes like Virginia.

VCEBI is part of the Modeling and Simulation Center for Collaborative Technologies (the ModSim Center), established with funding from the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission (Virginia Tobacco Commission). Dr. Inge, who is also Executive Director of the ModSim Center, said she is extremely pleased with the recognition by CEA: “Admission to this prestigious group validates the organizing concept for the Virginia Incubator and the expectations for developing green energy technologies that will help secure our nation’s energy future. We are looking forward to bringing many new technologies from the inventor stage to the pilot stage and then to the commercial reality. We’re confident that the benefits of the Virginia Tobacco Commission’s fiscal contribution will soon be realized and we thank them for their faith in our leadership”.

Mr. Frank S. Ferguson, Virginia’s Deputy Attorney General and Chairman of the Center’s steering committee, said: “The admission of the Virginia Incubator into Clean Energy Alliance is a wonderful step forward for Virginia’s scientific research community. It is a terrific tribute to the efforts of Dr. Inge and her dedicated team in launching Riverstone. As chairman of the steering committee for the modeling and simulation project there, I know great things are coming and it is gratifying to see this prestigious national recognition.”

CEA, originally named The National Alliance of Clean Energy Business Incubators (NACEBI), was established in 2000 by the U.S. Department of Energy under the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Since its founding, CEA has served as an association of leading technology business incubators dedicated to helping clean energy-related startup and developmental businesses grow. CEA was incorporated in 2006 as a non-profit organization to enhance its ability to provide its members with access to the best business development and related services tailored to the needs of the clean energy business community. The incubators help client companies refine their business cases and develop their enterprises, thus making them more attractive to private sector investors and, ultimately, commercial deployment.

Dr. Lawrence Murphy, Manager of the Enterprise Development Program at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and an associate member of the CEA, said “I want to welcome the Virginia Clean Energy Business Incubator (VCEBI) to the Clean Energy Alliance. This is a great and energetic addition to our Alliance network that adds exciting new capabilities and expertise while broadening our geographic band-width. With the new national focus on jobs and workforce development, as well as the commercialization of clean energy technologies and the associated infrastructure, I anticipate that VCEBI along with the current members are well positioned to demonstrate CEA’s key role and potential huge contribution to this national objective.”

For more information, see www.virginiaenergynetwork.com and http://www.cleanenergyalliance.com/mission.php.

The Argument For a Study

OK, Mr. Bagley...we'll pose the question to you that no one yet has answered: Where, anywhere in the world, is there a "safe" uranium mine? It would be nice if you could give us a mine-site in a densely populated area with weather patterns similar to those in Pittsylvania Co., but we'll settle for any "safe" uranium mine, anywhere in the world. Please leave your answer as a comment. OK? Thanks in advance!

The Virginian-Pilot

Reader's Opinions

23 April 2009

I AM DISAPPOINTED at the lack of progress toward the study of safely mining uranium in Pittsylvania County and The Virginian-Pilot's openly negative stance on the pursuit of safe mining.

Surely, all citizens should want a fully objective study, but I disagree with the implication in your editorial 'In uranium study, ensure independence' (April 1) that those who are 'sitting on a pile of uranium ore' have concocted a 'cynical ploy to discredit organizations with legitimate interests in the process.' You seem to have convicted Virginia Uranium Inc. of placing financial gain ahead of safety and principle; yet the company first requested the unbiased study, funded by the state.

A bigger issue is your failure to acknowledge the potential benefit. We currently import the vast majority of our nuclear fuel. Doesn't it make sense to at least try to find a way to mine this resource safely? Your contention that Virginia Uranium 'should be required to turn over the full amount for the study up front, rather than parsing it out over the course of the research' is laughable. If the first phase of the study conclusively determined the project unsafe, why continue it? The rest of the cost of the study could be diverted to another project that might bear economic fruit.

Perhaps the biggest issue is that the loudest objections to a study seem to be predicated upon the impact of decisions made decades before advances in technology and safety regulations.

Become informed, encourage the study. Let facts, not fear and ignorance, determine the future of nuclear energy for the production of electric power.

J.L. Bagley Sr.

Virginia Beach

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/04/argument-study

World Report: Uranium Mining

[I]n the American West, there is a new rush -- this time for uranium rather than gold. The push for nuclear energy is making uranium precious, and as the price rises, efforts to get it out of the ground intensify. That's where the trouble starts. Many are saying, 'Not in my backyard!' But what some people are discovering is they don't have a say, even if it is literally in their backyards.

World Report premieres every Tuesday on HDNet, and is the only program of its kind to be shown entirely in stunning, 1080i high-definition. For more, go to http://hd.net/worldreport.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJU115a9Stc

While this YouTube clip spotlights Goliad, TX, it speaks the truth about contamination, well-water pollution, and the overall dangers of mining uranium. It's only 3:11 minutes long...well-worth watching.

Our thanks to Mark Krueger...as always.

Demands put uranium mining foes at odds

It should be noted that Eloise Nenon is a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens who remains actively committed to SCC and to the defeat of uranium mining at Coles Hill.

By John Crane

Published: April 22, 2009

A board member of Southside Concerned Citizens said she does not support the petition that would demand that the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors ban uranium mining.

If supervisors refused to ban uranium mining in the county, they would be declared “illegitimate under the Virginia Constitution,” according to the petition The Alliance and the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund planned to circulate at a meeting at Averett University on Wednesday night. Averett officials asked that the petition not be circulated at the meeting, and the groups complied.

Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119-million pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham.

Virginia currently has a moratorium on uranium mining.

The petition demands that supervisors ban uranium mining within three months of receiving it. It also calls on residents to vote on ratification of a proposed county constitution banning uranium mining and to declare that the supervisors be given the choice to adopt it. If the board doesn’t, the constitution wouldstill become law and a special election would be held to elect new supervisors.

The petition also states the Pittsylvania County Chapter of Southside Concerned Citizens, an anti-uranium mining group, would oversee a county election of 11 people to draft a county constitution banning uranium mining and recognizing the right to community self-governance.

Eloise Nenon, a board member of Southside Concerned Citizens, said the group would not be a part of the effort to overthrow the county’s Board of Supervisors.

“We are opposed to that process, and we will not participate in that,” Nenon said during a telephone interview Wednesday.

Gregg Vickrey, a founder and chairman of The Alliance, said the petition mentioning the SCC was the wrong one. Vickrey used to chair the Pittsylvania County SCC, but left the group in February to form The Alliance.

Shireen Parsons, Virginia community organizer with the CELDF, said the petition mentioning SCC was an old copy, and that the voting process would be determined later if the scenario described in the petition became reality.

Nenon said she prefers to work within the existing system of government to educate lawmakers about the environmental consequences from uranium mining. The Pittsylvania County chapter of SCC never formally existed, Nenon said.

Parsons said whatever Nenon does is her choice.

“This is democracy,” Parsons said. “She can do whatever she wants.”

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/demands_put_uranium_mining_foes_at_odds/10563/