NATIONAL DON'T NUKE THE CLIMATE CALL-IN DAY--THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15

PICK UP THE PHONE! KEEP THOSE SENATE PHONES RINGING!

AND KEEP THOSE E-MAILS/FAXES COMING TOO!

TALKING POINTS BELOW

October 14, 2009

Dear Friends,

Tomorrow is the National Don't Nuke the Climate Call-In Day!

Please call both of your Senators offices and tell them to keep nuclear power out of the Senate climate bill. Recent events, like the John Kerry/Lindsay Graham op-ed in Sunday's New York Times calling for more nuclear power in the bill, add to the urgency of this call-in day.
Help keep the Senate's phones ringing all day long!
Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121.

And keep your letters and faxes to your Senators coming, and keep forwarding the action url to all of your lists: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/t/5846/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2137

Post it on your Facebook pages, Tweet it, spread the word every way possible. More than 4,000 letters already have been sent to the Senate this week--but we'll need more than that to beat the nuclear lobbyists. And with 16,000+ people on this e-mail list, that means a lot of you haven't yet taken action, and haven't yet helped reach the millions more people across this country who also want to keep nuclear out of the climate bill.

So take action today. E-mail and/or fax your Senators here. Then spread the word to every list you have, everyone you can think of.

And take action tomorrow. Call both your Senators offices at 202-224-3121.
The basic talking point is simple. If you only get 30 seconds with your Senators' offices, or an answering machine, just tell them: No nuclear power in the Senate climate bill, no more taxpayer dollars to support the failed nuclear industry.

But if you get a little more time, below are some talking points you may want to use. These also will be useful for drafting letters to the editor, op-eds, blog postings and the like--all of which will be very helpful as well. The more noise and publicity we can make, the better off we'll be.

Talking Points
*Nuclear power already receives a competitive advantage when a price is placed on carbon. If the nuclear industry cannot compete with such an advantage, that's its own problem, taxpayers should not be expected to provide more help to the industry.

*Projected costs for new reactors are stratospheric. In early 2006, the Nuclear Energy Institute predicted costs for the first few new reactors would run $2,000/kw, going down to $1,500/kw over time. Instead, recent estimates include Turkey Point (Florida) at $8,200/kw and Calvert Cliffs-3 (Maryland) and Bell Bend (Pennsylvania) at about $9,000/kw, or $13-15 billion. For example, see: http://www.bellbend.com/faqs.htm

*Cost overruns have been a constant with the nuclear industry. A 1986 Department of Energy study found the average cost overrun for the first 75 U.S. reactors was 207%. Reactors coming online after 1986 typically experienced even larger overruns. The only two reactors now under construction in the West-Areva reactors in Finland and France-are currently 75% and 20% over-budget, with years to go before construction completion.

*Electricity from new reactors, as expected with such enormous costs, would make the 1980s concept of "rate shock" seem quaint. An August 2009 report from the California Energy Commission, for example, predicts kilowatt/hour costs for nuclear electricity as high as 27-34 cents/kwh-nearly a tripling from today's prevailing rate of less than 12 cents/kwh. This report is available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-017/CEC-200-2009-017-SD.PDF

*Nuclear power is not carbon-free. The nuclear fuel chain is responsible for fairly significant carbon emissions--at least three times those of wind power, for example. A recent study by Virginia Tech professor Benjamin Sovacool on this subject is available here: http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf

*Nuclear reactors use enormous amounts of water, and water will become an increasingly precious resource in years to come, especially as we grapple with a warming climate. Allocating water to nuclear reactors now means less water for people and agriculture down the road. An August 2009 Virginia Tech study notes 36 states are projected to experience water shortages during the next decade. http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/water/sr46waterdependency.pdf

*Nuclear power is not even the only baseload alternative, as some in the industry claim. As cited in the August 6, 2009 Wall Street Journal for example, Spain is building large baseload solar thermal power plants for about $5,200/kw. While expensive, this is still $2,000/kw cheaper than the current low estimates for new reactor construction.

*Congress must not pre-judge the administration's re-evaluation of radioactive waste policy, which has not yet even begun. Specifically, no money should be spent on expensive, dangerous technologies like reprocessing, especially when the future direction of waste policy is unknown.
Tomorrow, NIRS staff will be going door-to-door in the Senate office buildings, delivering the thousands of postcards you sent to us (Thanks!) and the list of 629 U.S. organizations that have signed on to the simple statement on nuclear power and climate change. We hope to hear those phones ringing in every office we visit!
Thanks for all you do, but this week, let's all try to do just a little bit more....

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director

Nuclear Information and Resource Service
www.nirs.org
nirsnet@nirs.org

"Incident" at B&W (Areva) Facility - July 2009-U in reservoir Campbell Co VA

By BryAN GENTRY

Published: September 28, 2009

A Babcock & Wilcox Company official explained how uranium got into an unchecked container at a local nuclear fuel facility in Julyduring a public review of the company’s safety record Monday night.

Federal regulators’ annual review of B&W focused somewhat on that incident, which prompted a low-level emergency declaration, though it occurred after the official review period ended in June.Roger Cochrane, general manager of the B&W Nuclear Operations Group, called the July incident “a disappointing event that’s not indicative of our typical performance.”

The annual public review officially covered Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspections at B&W from June 2008 through June 2009.

In those inspections, “we found that there were no areas needing improvement,” said Charles Payne, branch chief of the NRC Division of Fuel Facility Inspection.Because of the clean inspections, the NRC plans to conduct its basic 1,700 hours of inspections at B&W this year. In the last inspection year inspectors spent an additional 88 hours inspecting B&W’s Campbell County facility because of previous problems, Payne said.

Once the NRC finishes its report on the July 15 alert, it could increase the inspection hours at B&W this year. “If we do so, we will obviously be in touch with you,” Payne said. “We will document it in a letter and it will be publicly available.”

Cochrane said that the July 15 incident that led to an alert was caused by an oversight.

In that incident, uranium was discovered in the cooling reservoir of a saw that cuts nuclear fuel components.

Cochrane said that B&W used to check that reservoir regularly to make sure it did not contain uranium or too much fluid. In 2004 the company installed a new cooling system that does not use the reservoir. B&W stopped monitoring the reservoir, not realizing fluid could still get into it, he said.

The reservoir should have been “disabled” by filling it with concrete or putting holes in it so it would not collect liquid, but it was not disabled, he said.

He said that the discovery of uranium in the reservoir shows that B&W does train its employees to keep an eye out for problems. “It didn’t appear right, so the operator did the right thing and brought it to his management’s attention,” Cochrane said.

Once the uranium was discovered, B&W declared an alert, the NRC’s lowest emergency level. The alert was active for about five hours until B&W concluded there was not enough uranium there to cause an explosion.

Since then, B&W has reinstated its program of checking that reservoir regularly, Cochrane said. After verifying how the uranium got into it, the reservoir will be disabled, he said.

B&W has also checked its documentation on other equipment changes to make sure there have been no similar oversights in other areas, Cochrane said.

Gene Cobey, the deputy director of the NRC’s Division of Fuel Facility Inspection, said the agency’s report on the July incident should be released in mid-October.

The meeting was held at Lynchburg City Hall. About 20 people attended, mostly B&W and NRC officials.

http://www2.newsadvance.com/lna/news/local/article/bw_explains_incident_during_public_safety_review/19888/

France Should be a Powerful Cautionary Tale for the U.S. about the Folly of a Headlong Rush into More Nuclear Power

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 15, 2009

CONTACT Alis Aaron Wolf, NIRS 703-276-3265

European Expert: U.S. Policymakers Are "As Wrong As They Can Be" About the French Experience With Nuclear Power Marignac Says "Far From Being a Model, France Should be a Powerful Cautionary Tale for the U.S. about the Folly of a Headlong Rush into More Nuclear Power". WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. policy makers are in the grips of "dangerous and costly illusions" if they think that France is a model showing how nuclear power could be implemented aggressively in the United States, according to Yves Marignac, a leading international consultant on nuclear energy issues and the executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris. In visits this week with state and federal officials, Marignac is debunking the myth of the so-called "French nuclear model" that is being touted as a blueprint for the revival of the embattled nuclear power industry in the U.S. His visit comes at a particular key time, as the U.S. Senate considers additional subsidies to the nuclear industry in its version of pending climate legislation and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) seeks public comment on weakening the rules for loan-guarantee bailouts of proposed new reactors. Yves Marignac said: "I am at a loss to understand how the United States could be so far off the mark in its understanding of the French experience with nuclear power. The so-called 'success story' of the French nuclear program, which is being promoted so assiduously by the U.S. nuclear industry, is a complete disconnect with the stark reality of the 50-year history of rising costs, steadily worsening delays, technological dead-ends, failed industrial challenges and planning mistakes. The United States could make few worse mistakes than embracing France's sorry nuclear legacy. If American policymakers are going to weigh the example of France, they need to get the facts instead of settling for the fantasy being sold to them by the US nuclear industry." In his remarks today, Marignac noted the following key problems: • French nuclear technology is deeply flawed. The French EPR Reactor is a new reactor design developed by the company Areva in cooperation with the German firm Siemens. Serious doubts have been raised about the safety and cost of the EPR. Experience in the construction at the two sites where EPRs are being built, in Finland (Olkiluoto 3) and France (Flamanville 3), has revealed serious and fundamental weaknesses in design, problems during construction phases and soaring costs. British and Finnish nuclear regulators have also raised significant safety questions, in particular about the computerized command and control system proposed for these reactors. • French nuclear reactor construction delays are getting steadily worse, not better. Alongside increasing costs, construction times have proven to be problematic. The last four reactors that were built in France, two units in Chooz and two in Civaux, were only connected on average 10.5 years after construction work began, and subsequent safety problems caused further delays. Their official industrial service only started in 2000 and 2002 respectively, some 15.5 and 12.5 years after construction started. • French nuclear reactor costs are just as out of control as they are in the U.S. The EPR has been promoted as a technology that makes nuclear energy cheaper and more competitive. When the decision was made to build an EPR in Finland in 2002, the government promised that it would cost Euro 2.5 billion and take only four years to build. The final contract, three years later, put the price at Euro 3 billion and construction time was set at 4.5 years. Since construction began in summer 2005, a variety of technical problems have led to a three and a half-year delay, extending the construction period to at least 7 years. The currently estimated additional cost is Euro 2.3 billion, raising the current price tag to Euro 5.3 billion, almost 75 percent over the initial estimate. More problems, delays and cost overruns are likely to occur before the project is completed. In September 2008, Nucleonics Week quoted an Areva official, saying that Euro 4.5 billion will be a minimum price for any new EPR — almost twice the initial estimate. The other EPR being built in Flamanville, France, was approved in 2005 on the basis of a 2.8 c€/kWh cost estimate, which was increased by EDF in December 2008 to 5.4 c€/kWh, although EDF itself estimated that it should be below 4.6 c€/kWh to guarantee profitability. • Nuclear power in France has not promoted energy independence. Nuclear power in France is a major presence, providing 76 percent of electricity produced in 2008. However, electricity accounted for only 20.7 percent of the final energy consumption in France that year. Excluding electricity exports, the overall contribution of nuclear power to France's final energy consumption is only in the range of 14 percent. If the real aim of the nuclear programme was to reduce oil dependence, then it has clearly failed in its objectives. Over 70 percent of France's final energy is provided by fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal), with oil accounting for 49 percent of the energy consumption in 2007. Nuclear power cannot provide energy security, as it only has a marginal effect upon oil consumption, which is dominated by the transport sector. France consumes more oil per capita than the European average, and despite its long-term objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by three-quarters, it seems incapable of bucking an upward trend. This is due largely to the weak policies on energy efficiency and new energy sources, influenced by the lock-in of nuclear power. • French nuclear power is not "safer" ... and the nation does not have a long term solution to waste storage. The operators of the 200 nuclear facilities in France declare a very large number of events — considered relevant for safety — every year. EDF alone declares between 10,000 and 12,000, of which 700 to 800 are deemed "incidents" or "significant events". Large amounts of radioactive waste arise from the French nuclear programme. In total, close to 890,000 cubic meters (m3) of radioactive waste had been produced by the end of 2004. Almost 40 percent of this amount is linked to reprocessing. This total does not account for some 12,000 m3 of waste from the reprocessing plant in Marcoule that was dumped into the sea in 1967 and 1969. While reprocessing is presented as a means to reduce the volume of highly-radioactive long-lived wastes in final disposal, it actually increases the complexity of waste management, and thereby the danger for the population and environment. Reprocessing comes with numerous extra nuclear facilities and transports, each creating extra safety risks. But also 'normal' radiation exposure arising from routine operations increases, for example by the radioactive discharges of La Hague reprocessing plants, with authorized discharge levels up to 1000 times higher than those applying to the nearby Flamanville nuclear power station. And even France, supposedly the country of nuclear expertise, has no long-term solution for its nuclear wastes. • Nuclear power in France is not popular. The pursuit of the nuclear program in France is a permanently undemocratic choice. Contrary to the image presented in the United States, the French population is no more in favor of nuclear power than the European average — indeed a majority is opposed to the building of new plants. Surveys repeatedly show that the public lacks confidence in the institutional promoters of nuclear power. • The "nationalized" nuclear model in France is completely incompatible with the market-driven U.S. In 2001, Compagnie Générale des Matières Nucléaires (Cogema — General Company for Nuclear Materials), a private company established in 1976, merged with Framatome, the nuclear reactor builder, to create the Areva group. Currently, 96 percent of the share capital of the Areva group is held by the French state and large French industries. Electricité de France (EDF), the French electric utility, was established in 1946 through nationalization of a number of state and private companies. First and foremost responsible for overseeing development of the electricity supply across France, today EDF operates all 59 nuclear reactors in service in France. EDF was partly privatized in 2005-2006, but the French government still retains control 84.9 percent of its shares. • State ownership of French nuclear power means that the true costs are hidden. Though largely in an indirect fashion, French taxpayers bear a large part of the nuclear costs. The French government, as both the regulator of electricity prices and the owner of the utility EDF, has been able to overcome the main obstacle to nuclear power by planning, at liberty, the return of capital costs from nuclear investments. French public funding is widely provided to the nuclear industry, from financing extensive R&D programs to guaranteeing low-rate loans. Official cost estimates for nuclear power tend to neglect or downplay hidden costs from the fuel cycle, waste management, decommissioning of nuclear facilities, security, infrastructural changes and state guarantees for liabilities. All in all, nuclear power is highly subsidized by the French taxpayer. ABOUT YVES MARIGNAC Yves Marignac is executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris, which he joined in 1997, after four years shared between academic research at Paris-XI University and applied studies in the French nuclear institute CEA and the nuclear company STMI. His consultant work covers a wide range of nuclear issues for various institutional bodies and NGOs at the national and international level. In 1999-2000, Marignac participated in the economic evaluation of the nuclear option commissioned by French Prime Minister (known as Charpin-Dessus-Pellat report), and in 2001 he was a co-author of a report to the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Option Assessment (STOA) Panel on reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. In 2005, he acted as consultant to the Commission that organized the institutional public debate on the project of the new French reactor, EPR (Flamanville-3). Marignac is the author or co-author of a number of books and other publications, including Nuclear Power, the Great Illusion - Promises, Setbacks and Threats (October 2008) and Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing in France (April 2008). CONTACT: Ailis Aaron Wolf, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com. EDITOR'S NOTE: A streaming audio replay of the news event is available on the Web at http://www.nuclearbailout.org.

It’s Time for Supervisors to Take Action

Excellent editorial!

By Published by The Editorial Board

Published: April 19, 2009

Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis wants to know why lead levels have been rising in the Gross family’s well in Sheva.

It’s a question everyone in Pittsylvania County should be asking.

To opponents of uranium mining in the county, the circumstantial evidence points to Virginia Uranium Inc.

VUI has drilled exploratory holes at Coles Hill to learn more about what is believed to be the largest uranium deposit in North America. Lead levels in the Gross’ well started to rise after the drilling started.

But that doesn’t prove anything. It only makes further investigation more important.

“It doesn’t matter whether it’s caused by the uranium,” Davis said this week. “What’s important is finding what’s causing it and getting those people help.”

To get the basic questions answered, Davis wants the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors to ask the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Virginia Department of Health to investigate.

That’s a smart use of public resources to answer questions that pertain to everyone who drinks well water in the county. We strongly urge other supervisors to get behind Davis on this issue.

For its part, VUI has said that the Gross’ well is located upstream from Coles Hill and the exploratory drilling could not have been the source of the rising lead levels.

Today, we know of no scientific evidence that links VUI and its exploratory well drilling to any environmental problems in the area. The company deserves the benefit of the doubt.

But this well water issue has become a challenge for VUI — and Pittsylvania County.

For Virginia Uranium Inc., this accusation puts the company on the defensive as the state undertakes a study of the safety of uranium mining. We believe the company should join with Davis and the Board of Supervisors and ask for the EPA and the state health department to investigate.

For Pittsylvania County, this accusation is a test. Virginia Uranium has been accused of damaging local water wells. The Board of Supervisors has proclaimed that the company’s activities must not harm the community.

It’s time for definitive answers.

We don’t know why there were 2.83 parts per billion of lead in the Gross’ well before VUI started exploratory drilling, and why there were 17.9 parts per billion last September.

If the company had something to do with that, the community needs to know.

If the company had nothing to do with that, the community needs to know that, too. It’s time for answers, and one way to get them is for the Board of Supervisors to follow Davis’ lead and bring in the outside help the county needs to get to the bottom of this issue.

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/editorials/danville_editorials/article/its_time_for_supervisors_to_take_action/10490/

Areva's Financial Meltdown: The Crash of France's Nuclear Poster Child

By HARVEY WASSERMAN

March 19, 2009

The myth of a successful nuclear power industry in France has melted into financial chaos.

With it dies the corporate-hyped poster child for a "nuclear renaissance" of new reactor construction that is drowning in red ink and radioactive waste.

Areva, France's nationally-owned corporate atomic façade, has plunged into a deep financial crisis led by a devastating shortage of cash.

Electricite de France, the French national utility, has been raided by European Union officials charging that its price-fixing may be undermining competition throughout the continent.

Delays and cost overruns continue to escalate at Areva's catastrophic Olkiluoto reactor construction project in Finland. Areva has admitted to a $2.2 billion, or 55%, cost increase in the Finnish building site after three and a half years. The Flamanville project---the only one now being built in France---is already over $1 billion more expensive than projected after a single year under construction.

In 2008, France's nuclear power output dropped 0.1%, while wind generation rose more than 37%.

Attempts to build new French reactors in the US are meeting stiffened resistance.

And the definitive failure of America's Yucca Mountain nuke waste dump mirrors France's parallel inability to deal with its own radioactive trash.

Widely portrayed as the model of corporate success, reactor-builder Areva is desperately short of money. As it begs a bailout from its dominant owner, the French government, Areva's mismanagement and overextension in promoting and building new reactors has wrecked its image in worldwide capital markets. According to Mycle Schneider, Paris-based author of "Nuclear Power in France---Beyond the Myth," Areva shares have plunged by over 60% since June 2008, twice as much as the CAC40, the standard indicator of the 40 largest French companies on the stock market.

Areva's hyper-active public relations department has made much of recent orders to build two new reactors in China. But it's now begging France's taxpayers for some $4 billion in short term bailout money, and may need still another $6 billion more to pay for investments in uranium mines, fuel production and heavy manufacturing ventures.

{...}

The potential American reactor market has also been bloodied by the definitive disposal of the proposed high level dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. After decades as the centerpiece of America's "solution" to the nuke waste problem, with at least $10 billion spent on it, Yucca's failure underscores France's own waste dilemma.

{...}

Areva says it hopes to raise cash by selling part of a uranium enrichment plant under construction in southern France to Japan's Kansai Electric. Other asset sales may be hampered by slumping market values. Areva also hopes to partner with US weapons builder Northrop Grumman to build heavy reactor equipment in Virginia.

{...}

"Those who think that nuclear power would be a cheap and clean way to render the US less dependent on oil should have a close look at the French record."

At the French heart of its "renaissance," the nuclear clock is winding down, not up. Time is running out for a radioactive technology that, after fifty years, remains unable to muster a sustainable level of private financing, shows no real promise of ever paying for itself, and has now plunged into deepening financial chaos.

Read the entire article here: http://www.counterpunch.org/wasserman03192009.html

Massey and James River Coal Get Warnings From U.S. Mining Agency

By Staff Reports

Published: March 17, 2009

BUSINESS BRIEFS

VIRGINIA
U.S. mine agency warns Massey, James River

The federal Mine Safety and Health Administration yesterday warned 15 mining operations to clean up their health and safety practices or face stricter enforcement.

The agency said the 13 coal mines, a dirt-processing plant and a gold mine have been cited repeatedly for "significant and substantial" violations that could have caused serious injuries or illnesses.

Among the operations warned are two mines and a processing plant controlled by Richmond-based Massey Energy Co., the nation's fourth-largest coal producer by revenue. Massey issued a statement noting that several of its operations have been warned in the past and all were able to correct problems.

The agency also singled out Richmond-based James River Coal Co. about its Blue Diamond Coal Co.'s mine No. 77. A James River spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/business/local/article/BBBB17_20090316-204208/233234/

220 South: Southside's Progressive Voice: New Section: Uranium Roundup

From 220 South, Southside's Progressive Voice Blog comes a new section: Uranium Roundup!

Given the constant stream of news surrounding Virginia Uranium Institute's proposed uranium mine in Pittsylvania County, I'm planning to start a weekly (or thereabouts) installment of uranium-related headlines to keep up with the relevant occurrences.


For those of you who are new to this blog, I've written before about my opposition to uranium mining and the conflicts of interest on the subcommittee tasked with "studying" such mining. It's become apparent that if I tried to write a post every time something happened, I'd never write about anything else and you would all get bored. Instead, here's some of what happened on the uranium front over the past week or so:

Read the rest here: http://220south.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-section-uranium-roundup.html

Map of Former Uranium Mining Leases Pittsylvania County, Virginia

http://www.pecva.org/anx/ass/library/19/miningleases_pitts1.pdf

Click on the link above to see a fairly detailed map of all the Pittsylvania Co. properties leased by Marline in the 1980's. We can only assume that many, if not all, of these properties will be as attractive to VUI as they were to Marline. However, we have not verified that they are currently under lease to VUI.

This is a large file...2.65 MB...so if you're on dial-up, it will take a little bit to download. Broad-band users will have no trouble seeing it quickly. It's a .PDF file and needs an Adobe Reader. You can adjust the size of the picture by clicking on the - or + buttons on the Reader.

The map was prepared by the Piedmont Environmental Council and the same disclaimers apply to it as to the water systems map below.

POWER POLITICS: Kentucky Leads the Way on Clean Energy (But at What Price?)

It all sounds so good...until you get to the part about the increase in mountaintop removal mining and extraction mining. Then the whole endeavor starts to smell...


An alliance of progressive, green and labor groups is promoting a proposal to put the country back to work with a Clean Energy Corps -- and Kentucky is leading the way with an ambitious model for how the initiative could work.

Not exactly what one might expect from a major coal state.

Gov. Steve Beshear and First Lady Jane Beshear recently launched the pilot program of the Kentucky Clean Energy Corps at the North Lexington home of Leona Pena. Her residence is the first of 100 owned by low- to moderate-income Central Kentucky families that will benefit from an energy efficiency rehab provided by the initiative.

"Through this pilot project, we hope to help many Kentucky families identify energy savings and reduce carbon emissions," said Gov. Beshear, a Democrat.

The program will provide participating families with an energy audit and options for energy-saving rehab projects such as insulation of ducts and walls, replacement of energy-wasting appliances and replacement of leaky windows and doors. In addition, all Kentucky Utilities customers participating in the program will have their existing electric meters replaced with a Smart Energy meter that displayed electricity usage on an in-home monitor, helping them better track energy usage. The program aims to make participants' homes 20 to 30 percent more energy efficient.

At the same time, the Corps is working with the Kentucky Community College and Technical System and state Chamber of Commerce to establish the commonwealth as a national center for green job training and development. State economists predict the program could eventually create thousands of "green collar" jobs.

Kentucky has already bucked expectations and established itself as a national leader in promoting greater energy efficiency through its comprehensive energy independence plan, called Intelligent Energy Choices for Kentucky's Future. As part of that effort, the state recently launched an initiative requiring new public facilities or renovations to existing facilities paid for with 50 percent of more state funds to be designed according to nationally recognized Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards.

Another initiative under Kentucky's plan will require certain existing state-owned facilities to reduce their use of lighting, heating, ventilation and air conditioning on nights and weekends -- an effort that will save an estimated $2 million a year in energy costs.

Kentucky's energy plan is not without its critics, though. Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, a statewide social justice advocacy group, has acknowledged that Beshear's plan has some good ideas but also points out that it includes proposals that would lead to big increases in coal extraction and more destructive mountaintop removal mining.

Nevertheless, Kentucky's efforts on the energy front are gaining national attention. In fact, they were cited as a model by the more than 80 labor, environmental, civic and policy organizations that recently unveiled a plan for a national Clean Energy Corps.

"At a time of severe hardship in the construction sector, retrofitting residential buildings to cut energy use can save consumers money, expand economic growth, reduce pollution and create jobs," said Bracken Hendricks, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "The Clean Energy Corps provides a national model to capture this opportunity on a large scale. And Kentucky is at the forefront, proving that this model works."

http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/03/power-politics-kentucky-leads-the-way-on-clean-energy.html