Steven Chu Provides Clear Statements About The Importance of Nuc

You sort of have to understand where A-Rod is coming from. He's major-league pro-nuke guy although his arguments sometimes fall flat at which time he changes the subject and goes in another direction, still pro-nuclear. He lives in Annapolis but works in VA. He goes on and on at times about his modest lifestyle and his deep respect for the nuclear industry. Sometimes it sounds like he hung his hat on something that didn't quite pan out for him but he's in so deep, he can't get out. Just my humble opinion, of course, having sparred with him before. Here's his latest. I do appreciate his brinigng us Steven Chu's recent statements about Virginia's eager receptiveness toward nuclear power..."clean power". Looks like we've got lots of work to do!


On the Atomic Insights Blog, Rod Adams discusses energy supplies, energy technology, and energy politics from an atomic point of view. This blog is closely associated with Atomic Insights at www.atomicinsights.com

On the Atomic Insights Blog, Rod Adams discusses energy supplies, energy technology, and energy politics from an atomic point of view. This blog is closely associated with Atomic Insights at www.atomicinsights.com

by Rod Adams [aka Atomic Rod]

Sunday, September 27, 2009

I learned a lot time ago that it can be difficult, but not impossible to change the course of a very large vessel that has momentum going in a particular direction. Even when someone determines the necessity of a course change, the safe rate of change for the turn will be dependent upon the speed of travel. If the person on the helm wants to allow his passengers to maintain their balance, he will have to be judicious in the use of rudder orders so that the turn can be made gradually.

If done correctly, the turn can be almost imperceptible to the people on board. In order to make a smooth turn at high speed, the people who have determined that the turn is necessary have to pick a spot where there is sufficient space in which to complete the turn without colliding with other ships or with underwater hazards. The people who decide how to maneuver large vessels often put themselves into protected control rooms so that their actions do not get a lot of interference or distractions from people who do not have the full picture of the overall situation.

It is with that knowledge that I am a bit less worried than some of my colleagues or even some of my regular readers and Atomic Insights contributors about the direction that America is heading with regard to effectively using nuclear energy as a primary tool in the war against pollution, poverty, and partisan politics.

A couple of days ago, I found some important words from the man who has been assigned part of the task of helping to make a big turn in direction. Those words were in a publication that would have been relatively inaccessible and probably overlooked in a less connected time in our history. You can find Chu's comments on the web site of the Lynchburg (VA) News and Advance at Virginia to receive federal funds for energy projects. Here is what Steven Chu told some people in Virginia when the Department of Energy announced some relatively minor federal block grants for energy projects (totaling just $16.1 million).

“Virginia is a perfect example of having real economic opportunities in clean energy,” Chu said. “The University of Virginia and Virginia Tech are at the forefront of clean-energy engineering,” he said.

In addition, “Virginia is a national leader in nuclear power,” and one-third of the state’s electrical energy comes from nuclear power, he said.

“We are eager to restart the nuclear program in the United States and we look forward to Virginia being part of that,” Chu said.

“We are in the final negotiations” for the federal government’s $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for the first utility companies that build new reactors, Chu said, “and I would personally like to see that loan guarantee program extended or renewed with additional money.”
(Emphasis added.)

It is certainly possible to be impatient about the length of time that it has taken to award loan guarantees. It can also be a bit discouraging to think about the amount of money now available from the federal government for nuclear energy projects compared to the amount given for home improvements, solar panels and wind turbines. That can be especially true if you happen to think that direct federal money is the prime enabler for nuclear energy deployment.

Read the rest of A-Rod's blog article here: http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2009/09/steven-chu-provides-clear-statement.html

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.

Nuclear Power in France: Setting the Record Straight

France sees the light re: nuclear power.

A COSTLY MISTAKE

► The state-owned French nuclear industry has
cost taxpayers billions, including huge export
losses, construction and shutdown costs.

►The breeder reactor – on which the French
nuclear hopes were based – was an expensive
gamble. The Superphenix breeder averaged a
7% capacity factor over its 14 years of operation.

FRENCH PUBLIC OPPOSITION

►60,000 people rallied in five cities in March
2007 in opposition to a proposed new European
Pressurized Reactor (EPR) in Northern France.

►Annual polls show at least 60% of French
citizens would like to see nuclear power phased
out and a shift made to renewable energy.

► In 2007, 50,000 French citizens signed a
petition demanding a referendum on radioactive
waste dumping in their communities.

FRENCH CORPORATIONS IN THE U.S.

► Two majority French-government-owned
corporations – Areva and Électricité de France –
would reap huge U.S. taxpayer funds if nuclear
power is expanded in the U.S.

► Areva would be the beneficiary of U.S. tax
dollars should a proposed uranium enrichment
facility – owned by Areva – go forward in Idaho.

► EDF, a partner with Constellation, is applying
to build EPR reactors in Maryland and in upstate
New York. At least five additional EPRs are also
under consideration in the US.

AREVA IN NIGER

► In Niger – as in many countries – uranium mining
has disproportionately affected indigenous peoples
who have seen none of the economic benefits but
have suffered from health and environmental impacts.
Proposed new mines across northern Niger have
sparked opposition from tribespeople who have been
arbitrarily arrested, tortured and executed without trial.

► Areva has mined uranium for 40 years in Niger,
West Africa, creating radioactively-contaminated air,
soil and water. Discarded radioactive metals from the
mining operation are sold in public marketplaces.

► Areva has signed a deal for a huge new uranium
mine in Niger that, if opened, would be the second
largest in the world. Uranium mining threatens to
deplete the Sahara Desert area water supply.

France gets nearly 80% of its electricity
from its 58 nuclear reactors. However, its
heavy reliance on nuclear power creates
safety and environmental risks, including an
unresolved radioactive waste problem.

REPROCESSING

► France reprocesses its own, and some
foreign, irradiated reactor fuel. That is, the
fuel is cut up and soaked in acid to extract
plutonium and fissile uranium. This results
in massive releases of radioactive gases,
solids, and liquids into the environment.

► One hundred million gallons of
radioactively contaminated liquids are
discharged annually into the English
Channel from the La Hague reprocessing
center. Dumping these same wastes into
the sea in containers would violate the
1970 London Dumping Convention.

► The claim that France “recycles” its
irradiated nuclear fuel is a major
exaggeration. Only about 1% of the
reprocessed fuel is used as reactor fuel
while 99% remains as radioactive waste.

► A plane crashing on a La Hague
irradiated fuel storage pond could release
radioactivity more than six times the
equivalent released at Chernobyl.

► Radioactive discharges from La Hague
have contaminated area beaches and
waters as far as the Arctic and beyond.
These discharges likely caused the
elevated rates of leukemia near La Hague
found by two independent medical studies.

► La Hague routinely releases radioactive
gases including concentrations of krypton-
85 found at levels 90,000 times higher than
in nature.

►Aerial discharges of carbon-14,
considered to be one of the most damaging
radioactive isotopes to human health, have
also been detected in the La Hague area.
Radioactive carbon dioxide — the leading
climate change culprit, is also released.

RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROBLEMS

► France has no high-level radioactive waste
repository and faces public opposition to the
only one it is exploring, at Bure.

► Reprocessing has created large quantities of
solid waste contaminated with plutonium that
will need to be isolated permanently.

► Much of the waste remaining in France from
the reprocessing of foreign fuel has never been
returned to the country of origin, rendering
France a de facto international dump site.

► The so-called low- and intermediate-level
radioactive waste dump sites that do exist –
including in the important Champagne region –
are leaking radioactivity into the groundwater.

► Radioactive tailings from the 210
abandoned uranium mines in France have
been used in public areas, including school
playgrounds and public parking lots.

PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

► After plutonium and uranium are extracted
during reprocessing, they can be combined into
mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel. This is used in fewer
than 20 MOX reactors which generate less
than 10% of French nuclear electricity.

► MOX reactors, like all reactors, also
generate plutonium. There is no significant net
reduction of plutonium from using MOX fuel.

► Dangerous plutonium oxide powder is
transported regularly from La Hague to the
MOX fuel fabrication plants in Belgium and
Southern France.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS LINK

►The 80-plus metric tons of plutonium
stockpiled at La Hague in hundreds of
vulnerable containers are enough to make
at least 10,000 bombs.

►France has exported civilian nuclear
technology and training to, or assisted in
the nuclear programs of, Pakistan, Israel,
India and South Africa, all of which
developed nuclear weapons.

►France exported nuclear technology to
Iran, now the subject of international
controversy about whether Iran is also
developing nuclear weapons.

► France has sent shipments of
plutonium fuel overseas, risking hijacking,
accident or diversion.

► France delivered and helped build
Iraq’s Osirak reactor that was
subsequently bombed by Israel in 1981.

►French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has
toured the globe promoting nuclear power
as a “bridge to the Islamic world.” France
is marketing nuclear technology to much
of the Middle East and North Africa.

FLAWED REACTOR TECHNOLOGY

►The French European Pressurized
Reactors (EPR) under construction in
France and Finland have encountered
serious technical flaws including
substandard parts.By July 2009, the
Finnish reactor was already at least three
years behind schedule and 60% over
budget.

► The summer of 2008 saw a cascade of
nuclear accidents in France. Drinking and
bathing in the water was banned after
radioactive spills at the Tricastin nuclear
complex contaminated rivers.

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/France_pamphlet_July09.pdf

7 Drawbacks To Using Nuclear Power

by Brett Stephens on September 23, 2009

by Tim McDonald

People may argue that 25% of the world’s energy is produced through nuclear power, but what they do not understand is all the problems it brings:

1 – It costs a lot of money to setup:

Nuclear power plants are definitely not a cheap investment. At around six to twelve billion dollars each – just for installation – taxpayers have subsidized billions of dollars to keep the utilities afloat. This money could have been invested in cleaner renewable energies instead.

2 – It causes global warming:

Once seen as the solution to global climate change, nuclear power is far from it. Everywhere along the nuclear chain – from the mining of uranium to its transportation to the construction of the power plant – greenhouse gases are emitted.

What’s more is these reactors take years to be fully operational – wasting precious time in our fight against global warming. We could have used that time and money more wisely, such as improved research and development in solar and wind power.

3 – The bi-product is radioactive waste:

Each reactor creates a lot (twenty to thirty tonnes) of highly toxic radioactive waste per year. Not to mention the so-called “low” level radiation emitted in the rest of the supply chain – such as during the mining and milling process.

4 – It is a nuclear bomb just waiting to be detonated:

Nuclear power plants are not as safe as they are said to be. They could easily be attacked and even if an accident happened, there are no realistic evacuation measures in place. Furthermore, thanks to the Price-Anderson Act, a utility company is liable for only $10.8 billion as opposed to the real potential damage of $600 billion! Who will be picking up the rest of the bill? The working-class taxpayers – that’s who!

5 – Low-level radiation causes cancer:

The levels of radiation released in the air, water and soil are considered “safe”. However, this standard is based on how it impacts healthy, white males and does not take consideration for children that are sensitive to cancer-causing radiation.

We have also been misled about how safe it really is to “dispose” of all this radioactive waste. There is no scientific proof to show where the safest place to dump the waste is. And more nuclear plants would make the problem worse. There are only so many “safe” storage facilities. Any additional waste would have to be either burned or dumped in landfills – leading to air and water pollution.

6 – Nuclear development aids terrorism:

A country’s national security always feels at threat when extremist countries start harnessing nuclear power. Just think about Israel attacking Syria’s so-called nuclear site back in 2007, and how uneasy America was when Iran was developing its own nuclear program. Nuclear power sets the stage for the production of atomic bombs, so as long the number of reactors increases, the likelihood of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons increases.

7 – There are better power options:

What frustrates us is that we we should rather be spending our time and money on the development of safer, cleaner, renewable energy solutions, such as erecting more solar plants and wind farms. Hopefully with Obama’s administration, nuclear energy will be phased out and largely replaced with the implementation of renewable energy.

But while we wait, it is possible to start harnessing renewable energy at home. What’s more is, it does not cost very much and is rather simple to implement. Various solar and wind power guides have already become available, which you can see in our reviews section.

About the Author:

So stop relying nuclear power and learn to make your own power at home. But before you get ripped off, have a look inside the best diy energy manual – Earth4Energy – for free NOW! You should also have a look at the in-depth Earth4Energy Review here.

http://thetechedition.com/7-drawbacks-to-using-nuclear-power/

Reactor opponents challenge law funding work

By Walter C. Jones | Morris News Service

Monday, September 07, 2009

ATLANTA --- The question of a controversial law's constitutionality could halt new nuclear reactors in Georgia.

A group opposed to reactors on environmental grounds is using a legal challenge to the financing mechanism granted to Georgia Power during the past legislative session as a way to prevent what it considers to be an ecological mistake.

Senate Bill 31 violates the state and federal constitution on several points, argue lawyers for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

The group, which is based in Tennessee but has members and offices in Georgia, has often spoken out against nuclear power and in favor of solar and wind power. Sara Barczak, of the group's Savannah office, relied on environmental arguments in December when she testified against the plant in front of the Public Service Commission.

"Downstream communities should be concerned about project water consumption at the proposed Vogtle site because consumptive water loss, especially during low river flows, can pose significant negative impacts to water quality and aquatic resources," she said.

She also raised concerns about the environmental impact of dredging the nearby Savannah River to allow reactor components to be shipped by barge, as they were when the first two reactors were built.

The group didn't succeed in convincing the commission, so now it's using a different tactic.

The Southern Alliance's 16-page lawsuit argues that when the legislation granted Georgia Power permission to charge its customers the construction costs before power generation begins, it amounted to a tax that gives the company something for nothing.

"The adoption of the nuclear tariff by the Georgia General Assembly creates an unconstitutional gratuity in favor of Georgia Power and its stockholders, for, among other reasons, paying such stockholders of Georgia Power a return on equity in excess of $1 billion before Units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle are even put into service, i.e., for services which have not been rendered," the lawsuit states.

Though Southern Alliance is suing the state and not the utility, Georgia Power filed a brief with Fulton County Superior Court asking for the case to be dismissed.

"We still feel like SB 31 was good for the people of Georgia, and we think it is a win-win," said company spokeswoman Carol Boatright.

The bill was controversial when it was debated in the General Assembly. Consumer groups such as Georgia Watch and AARP joined environmentalists in fighting it. The company and its allies carried the day by arguing that more electric generating capacity was needed and that nuclear was the best source. They said consumers would benefit from paying in advance rather than having interest charges mount.

The company also stressed that having a guaranteed funding stream during construction was necessary to attract investors who would lend the money for the work. That funding guarantee was vital, and many other utilities across the country without a similar guarantee haven't been as aggressive about new reactors, according to William Tucker, author of Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power will lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey .

Winning a judgment against the law could halt the project with more finality than many environmental considerations might. For example, a victory for environmentalists on dredging would merely force the utility to go to the added expense of shipping by rail or truck.

One thing power companies and environmentalists agree on is they don't want to see the history of nuclear power plants repeated.

Neither side wants the long, expensive battles that cost taxpayers and utility customers and still ended in the operation of 104 reactors across the country..

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has replaced the two-step licensing process used in the 1960s and 1970s that granted one license for construction and a second one for operating. At the time, there were many fights at each stage, with some second-stage skirmishes duplicating issues that had been debated at the first stage. Resolving concerns after the plants were built and awaiting an operating license proved to be costly and time consuming.

Now the NRC will issue one combined construction and operating license in an attempt to contain the fights to one stage.

Tom Kauffman, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, said opposition won't disappear.

"We expect that there will be contentions as new plants enter the application process," he said. "That's as it should be, to allow concerns to be aired."

The Vogtle application is still pending before the NRC, even as basic construction is under way in Waynesboro.

Southern Alliance's lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court represents a new venue. A critical early decision will be whether the judge grants a restraining order that prohibits Georgia Power from charging its customers until the case is settled.

So far, no hearings have been scheduled or witnesses deposed. And with the likelihood that its outcome will be appealed, its resolution could be slow.

Reach Walter Jones at (404) 589-8424 or walter.jones@morris.com.

THE LEGAL ARGUMENT

An environmental group that wants to stop construction of two nuclear reactors has filed a lawsuit that's not based on ecological arguments. Instead, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy challenges the constitutionality of a state law that allows Georgia Power to pay for construction by charging its customers before the reactors begin generating power.

The suit says Senate Bill 31 is unconstitutional on six grounds:

- It bypasses the Public Service Commission, which has responsibility in the state constitution for electric utilities.

- The law takes money away from Georgia Power customers and gives them no immediate benefit, an alleged violation of the U.S. Constitution's right to due process.

- By exempting large commercial and industrial customers of Georgia Power, the law discriminates.

- Because customers pay while getting no electricity, the charges amount to an illegal gratuity to Georgia Power.

- A government-ordered fee is essentially a tax, and only governments can benefit from a tax.

- The fee strengthens Georgia Power financially, but because the company is a monopoly, the state can't pass laws that benefit it.

Source: Lawsuit filed by the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2009/09/07/met_547261.shtml

NRC Director to Speak at Lynchburg Energy Conference

By Ray Reed

Published: July 21, 2009

An energy conference featuring the director of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be held in Lynchburg on Monday [July 27. 2009].

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-6th District, is sponsoring the conference, which will bring NRC Director Kristine Svinicki and two other speakers to Central Virginia Community College for the 10 a.m. event.

“This conference will have a lot of useful information about energy needs, about legislation in Congress, and three guest speakers, all of whom should be interesting,” Goodlatte said.

It also promises information about alternatives to the energy bill the House of Representatives passed in June, over Goodlatte’s opposition.

Although he’s in favor of developing new energy sources in the Democrat-backed bill, Goodlatte said, “it’s far too expensive to replace nuclear, coal and gas-powered vehicles.”

“Those are the sources of energy we are heavily dependent on in this country,” and “we’re going to be heavily reliant on them for years to come,” he said.

“Where the Democratic bill went off track was by raising the cost of utilizing them before we had anything to replace them with” in the form of proven and renewable green-energy sources, Goodlatte said.

Speakers, in addition to Svinicki and Goodlatte, will be Ben Lieberman of the Heritage Foundation and Timothy Davidick, an executive with ADM Micro Inc., an energy management company in Roanoke.

Goodlatte said he expected several energy-related companies to set up display tables at the conference, including Areva nuclear company, American Electric Power, Dominion Virginia Power, Innovative Wireless Technologies, Babcock & Wilcox Co. and Virginia Uranium Inc. of Pittsylvania County. A Toyota energy-efficient car will be on display, Goodlatte said.

Svinicki has been commissioner of the NRC since March 2008. She is a nuclear engineer and was a policy adviser for the Senate Armed Services Committee under former Sen. John Warner, R-Va.

She worked on defense science and technology programs, including nuclear weapons, security and environmental management programs.

Lieberman, a specialist in energy and environmental issues, frequently comments on TV news channels and advocates free-market solutions to rising energy prices while supporting access to domestic energy supplies.

Davidick heads up an ADM Micro initiative to help commercial properties upgrade their electricity metering and sustainable energy programs such as power from solar, wind and biofuel sources. The company provides systems that manage electricity use in stores, restaurants and government buildings.

http://www.newsadvance.com/lna/news/local/article/nrc_director_to_speak_at_city_energy_conference/17878/

Battle Looms Over Relaxing Nuclear Regulations

The Global Warming Task Force recommends weakening the state’s rules

By Bill Christofferson

As a quiet but concerted effort is under way to weaken state laws regulating nuclear power plant construction in Wisconsin, a battle is brewing.

State utilities and the nuclear industry have zeroed in on Wisconsin as a key, symbolic target in their national campaign to reopen the door to expansion. On the other side, a coalition of 14 public interest and environmental groups has formed in opposition to any new reactors, and in support of a 100% renewable energy policy for the state.

The debate is more nuanced than pro-nukes versus no-nukes. But at stake is whether Wisconsin will ease the restrictions on new reactors and, if it does, whether the state would actually allow more reactors to be built.

Nuclear Rules Are One Part of a Larger Package

Legislation is being drafted for introduction in the Legislature in the fall, based on a package of recommendations from the Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming. That task force included consumer and environmental groups as well as utility representatives, and all agreed that task force members would support the entire package, which contains many solid recommendations to reduce Wisconsin’s carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. But it also relaxes the rules on nuclear plants.

So a number of traditionally anti-nuclear groups, who still oppose expanding nuclear power, will find themselves conflicted—supporting the task force package that relaxes the rules, while working as part of a coalition that wants Wisconsin to be both carbon free and nuclear free.

Opponents of the nuclear changes will face a formidable challenge if they attempt to separate that recommendation from the rest of the package.

For a quarter century, Wisconsin has had a sensible law in place that has prevented the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the state.

It is commonly referred to as a nuclear moratorium. In fact, it does not forbid construction of new plants, but sets two requirements that must be met to win approval of the Public Service Commission (PSC):

1. That a federally licensed facility be available at which to dispose of the dangerous high-level radioactive waste that the plant produces.

2. That the PSC determine that the plant facility is economically advantageous to the people of the state.

The law has acted as a de facto moratorium because the industry has not been able to meet either of the requirements. Now, instead of meeting these two requirements, the nuclear industry wants to relax the rules, and eliminate the condition that there be a federal disposal site.

PR vs. Reality

Despite the industry’s heavy lobbying and PR efforts, nuclear advocates’ claims aren’t supported by reality.

The nuclear industry sees an opening by offering itself as a solution to climate change problems, claiming it is “clean.” But there are significant carbon emissions at every step of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to decommissioning old plants.

Safety is an ever-present issue for nuclear reactors. Wisconsin has not suffered a major accident. But only five “red findings”—the highest safety failure warnings in the industry—have ever been issued by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and three of the five went to Wisconsin’s Point Beach plant, near Two Rivers.

After more than 50 years of producing highly radioactive waste, there is still no safe way to dispose of it permanently. Some of the byproducts of generating nuclear power are so dangerous to human health and the environment that the Environmental Protection Agency issued rules requiring a disposal site be able to protect the public from radiation released by the waste for up to one million years.

A million years. To put that into some perspective, 15,000 years ago Wisconsin was covered by glaciers.

Because there is no federally approved site for nuclear waste, the three commercial reactors in Wisconsin have been accumulating three decades’ worth of waste in temporary storage facilities next to the reactors at Point Beach and Kewaunee, near Lake Michigan.

To build more reactors to produce more dangerous waste while we have no safe means of disposal is beyond irresponsible. It is unconscionable.

Then there’s cost. It doesn’t make economic sense to build new nuclear plants, which is why the nuclear industry is asking Congress for $50 billion in subsidies in the form of loan guarantees. Taxpayers already heavily subsidize nuclear power, and in the event of a major accident, taxpayers will foot most of the bill.

Nuclear power makes no more sense to day than it did when the nuclear moratorium was passed in 1984. Wisconsin must address the climate crisis, but renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power. The choice between coal and nuclear power is a false one. Wisconsin can be both carbon free and nuclear free. That should be our goal.

Bill Christofferson, of Milwaukee, is co-chair of the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice, a statewide coalition of 165 organizations working for social change. For more information, visit www.wnpj.org or www.carbonfreenuclearfree.org.

http://www.expressmilwaukee.com/article-7292-battle-looms-over-relaxing-nuclear-regulations.html

Nuclear power isn't clean or cheap

BY NIELS S. NOKKENTVED - Idaho Statesman

Published: 07/14/09

An Eagle-based company wants to build a 1,600-megawatt nuclear power plant in Elmore County.

The U.S. Congress is considering a bill that proposes the nation build 100 new nuclear power reactors over the next 20 years.

Idaho Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson has embraced nuclear power, and like others, promotes it as cheap and clean. They argue also that nuclear energy emits no greenhouse gases. But it is unclear which part of the nuclear energy cycle they're referring to. Nuclear power is neither cheap nor clean.

The two main reasons no new power plants have been built in the United States since the late 1970s are the high cost of construction and the uncertainty of the regulatory approval process. Only federal subsidies make nuclear power "cheap."

The nuclear fuel cycle starts with mining, which relies on trains, trucks and heavy equipment that run on diesel fuel. Refining the ore and turning it into nuclear fuel creates large amounts of radioactive and toxic tailings and waste. Uranium, for example, gives off radioactive radon gas, the second leading cause of lung cancer in this country.

And operating a nuclear power plant requires an outside source of electric power. Reactors emit small amounts of radiation and heat in the form of steam or hot water, and they produce waste for which we have no disposal solution.

Uranium mining and milling have a sordid history in the West. In the Southwest, Navajo homes once were built of radioactive mine tailings, and their land is riddled with more than 1,000 abandoned mines. Mining companies hired local residents to work at low wages without telling them of the health risks. When the ore played out, some companies simply walked away.

In one example, Uranium Reduction Co. began processing ore from the Moab area's rich uranium ore deposits in the 1950s. In 1962, the company sold the mill to Atlas Minerals Corp., which ran it until declaring bankruptcy in 1998. The federal government took over the site in 2001.

Today a 94-foot tall pile of radioactive and toxic mill tailings covers 130 acres and holds 12 million tons of radioactive waste - about 750 feet from the third largest river in the West, three miles from Moab, less than a mile from Arches National Park and across the mouth of Moab Wash.

The unlined pile leaks an average of 57,000 gallons per day into the Colorado River upstream of Lake Mead, which supplies drinking and irrigation water to southern California, Las Vegas and parts of Arizona. Similar piles at 38 mill sites in the West - 22 of them abandoned - hold 140 million tons of radioactive tailings.

The story doesn't end with refining the ore. Producing reactor fuel involves a process that concentrates one form, or isotope, of uranium that can sustain a nuclear reaction. The leftovers, known as "depleted uranium," remain radioactive. About 750,000 tons of depleted uranium already awaits disposal. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued warnings about disposing of large amounts of this material as "low level" waste - the current proposed practice.

Most industry supporters - who claim nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases - want to ship spent fuel from power plants, mainly in the eastern part of the country, by diesel-powered trains to a proposed waste disposal facility in Jackass Flats, Nev. - a site known as Yucca Mountain.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Niels S. Nokkentved has degrees in journalism and environmental studies and has worked as natural resource reporter for 20 years, including more than 12 years of covering nuclear waste issues at the Idaho National Laboratory.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/story/832976.html

Secretaries of Agriculture, Energy to visit Ringgold Saturday, July 18

Mark your calendars and make plans to be in Ringgold on Saturday, July 18! We'll bring you more details re: time and location as they're available. This is a stellar opportunity to approach these Cabinet members, President Obama's right-hand men, and make your thoughts known on nuclear energy as well as on true alternative/renewable energy! Please don't let this chance pass you by! Everyone with a stake in the future of Southside needs to be out in force to talk to Secretary Vilsack and Secretary Chu!

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 9:41 AM EDT

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu will visit Pittsylvania County later this month as part of President Obama's "Rural Tour."

Vilsack and Chu are scheduled to be in Ringgold on Saturday, July 18, to talk about green jobs and a new energy economy with a focus on weatherization and carbon sequestration.

Details of the cabinet secretaries' visit are still being worked out. A time and location have not been announced.

Todd Haymore, commissioner of the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, said he is aware of the secretaries' visit, and hopes to receive more details soon.

"We've been hearing about this potential visit for months and were even asked to submit some ideas for his staff's consideration," said Haymore, a county native.

"We obliged and forwarded a number of suggestions: a combination of traditional agricultural operations mixed with those that either had current or future bio-energy potential."

Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors chairman Coy Harville said the secretaries' visit is exciting news.

"This is a big plus, especially with the energy crunch we are in," said Harville.

"It speaks volumes about Virginia and speaks volumes about Pittsylvania County."

Freddie Wydner, the county's agricultural development director, agreed.

"I think the county should be proud that our advances in agriculture are being noticed," said Wydner.

Windy Acres in Gretna is producing "bio-crude" and Van Der Hyde Dairy in Chatham recently proposed installing the state's first anaerobic digester.

The county also is at the forefront in selling "carbon credits," the agriculture director said.

"All of these are a testament to the county and Virginia agriculture as a whole," said Wydner.

"Washington is taking note, and the farming community should feel pride knowing the Secretary of Agriculture wants to come here to talk about green energy and the green economy."

The president's office announced the "Rural Tour" last week, saying that over the course of the next few weeks and months, top administration officials, including cabinet secretaries, will "fan out across the nation to hold a series of discussions on how communities, states, and the federal government can work together to help strengthen rural America."

Vice President Joe Biden, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, and Vilsack began the tour on July 1 by visiting Wattsburg, Pa., to discuss rural broadband.

"A healthy American economy depends on a prosperous rural America," Obama said. "Rural America is vast and diverse, and different communities face different challenges and opportunities.

"That's why we're going out to hear directly from the people of rural America about their needs and concerns and what my Administration can do to support them."

Administration officials participating in the tour will hear about challenges and opportunities facing small towns and rural communities.

They also will share some of the Obama administration's ideas about how to "nurture strong, robust, and vibrant rural communities."

They will report back to the president about the state of rural America and what the administration can do to strengthen it.

The events will serve as "listening sessions" on such issues as broad-based rural health, economic development, infrastructure, education, energy, natural resources, and agriculture.

Events will be held in Alaska, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Vilsack will hold listening sessions in additional states with local and state elected officials.

The rural tour is scheduled to end in September.

"The entire tour will provide an opportunity for the Obama administration to listen to diverse voices throughout rural America, and to highlight its broader vision for growth and prosperity in these regions of the country," a spokesman said.

Global Laser Enrichment Submits License Application to Build First Commercial Uranium Enrichment Plant Using Laser Technology

Third-Generation Technology Would Increase Production of Enriched Fuel for U.S. Nuclear Power Plants

WILMINGTON, N.C.--30 June 2009--

Global Laser Enrichment (GLE), a business venture of GE, Hitachi Ltd. and Cameco, today announced a landmark in the deployment of its proposed, next-generation enrichment facility designed to increase the United States’ supply of enriched uranium to fuel its nuclear power plants.

GLE has completed its license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to build the world’s first commercial uranium enrichment facility to use laser technology. The proposed facility would be built in Wilmington, N.C.

The new facility would produce a new domestic supply of low-enriched uranium used to power nuclear plants to meet an anticipated increase in global demand. The facility also would help support the country’s goal to reduce carbon emissions through the expanded use of nuclear energy, which creates virtually no greenhouse gases during the electricity generation process.

If approved, GLE’s facility could help drive U.S. job creation, including up to 300 permanent engineering and support staff positions and more than 500 construction jobs.

“Our goal is to enable an efficient and effective review of our innovative technology by providing a quality, complete application to the NRC,” said Tammy Orr, President and CEO of GLE. “Submitting the highest-quality product has been our priority for this significant licensing process milestone.”

The NRC’s estimated 30-month application review will officially begin once the agency formally dockets, or accepts, the GLE application. On January 30, GLE submitted its environmental report for the proposed facility, representing a significant portion of the overall license application. The NRC had approved the early, partial submittal to add efficiency to its review process.

Global demand for low-enriched uranium is expected to increase significantly in the coming years.

First, a major supply of low-enriched uranium for U.S. nuclear power plants will cease in 2013, with the expiration of a program to convert Russian weapons-grade material into nuclear plant fuel (commonly known as “Megatons to Megawatts”).

Also, the anticipated construction of a new generation of nuclear power plants is expected to further intensify the demand for fuel.

”This is an exciting time in our industry,” Orr said. “As world leaders in innovation and technology, we have a unique opportunity to offer needed enrichment supply to nuclear operators meeting the challenges of energy security, climate change and increased demands for power.”

GLE currently is in the pre-deployment stage of its enrichment test loop, which is designed to confirm the commercial feasibility of the technology and advance the design of the equipment, facility and processes for the planned production facility.

GLE will use the information from the test loop in its evaluations of whether or not to proceed with the full-scale commercial facility. The plant would be co-located with the existing nuclear fuel manufacturing facilities of Global Nuclear Fuel and the new plants and services business of GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, headquartered in Wilmington, N.C.

If the decision is made to proceed with construction, the GLE commercial production facility would have a target capacity of three-to-six million separative work units (SWUs). A SWU is a unit measuring the energy used to enrich uranium, which is then fabricated into fuel assemblies for nuclear power plants.

In 2006, GLE acquired the exclusive rights to develop and commercialize the third-generation uranium enrichment technology globally through a license from Silex Systems Ltd. of Australia. In 2008, Cameco, one of the world’s largest uranium producers, acquired a 24% ownership stake in GLE.

About GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy

Based in Wilmington, N.C., GEH is a world-leading provider of advanced reactors and nuclear services. Established in June 2007, GEH is a global nuclear alliance created by GE and Hitachi to serve the global nuclear industry. The nuclear alliance executes a single, strategic vision to create a broader portfolio of solutions, expanding its capabilities for new reactor and service opportunities. The alliance offers customers around the world the technological leadership required to effectively enhance reactor performance, power output and safety.

About Cameco Corporation

Cameco, with its head office in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, is one of the world's largest uranium producers. The company's uranium products are used to generate electricity in nuclear power plants around the world, providing one of the cleanest sources of energy available today. Cameco's shares trade on the Toronto and New York stock exchanges.

Judge rules Indian Point's fish-killing cooling process must stop

BY Abby Luby
SPECIAL TO THE NEWS

Friday, July 3rd 2009, 4:00 AM

Di Paloa/Bloomberg

Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan, N.Y., is said to be responsible for killing fish, eggs, larvae and plants.

Officials at the Indian Point nuclear power plant - which has been called [ir]responsible for killing more than a billion fish each year - will have to figure out another way to cool its giant heated steam turbines, a state court has ruled.

The plant sucks in and returns more than 2.5 billion gallons of Hudson River water daily - 2 million gallons per minute - in a system that pulls in and kills fish, eggs, larvae and plant life.

The hot water flushed back into the river is fatal to some 1.2 billion fish every year, according to the state Department of Environmental Conservation. The cooling system doesn't use radioactive water from the reactor core.

Last week, acting state Supreme Court Justice Gerald Connolly turned down plant owner Entergy's bid to overturn a year-old DEC decision that faulted Indian Point's water intake system for killing the fish.

The judge said Entergy's appeal was premature, stating: "Petitioner's claims are not ripe for review by the Court at this time."

The ruling now gives the DEC the green light to push for a new cooling system that would reduce fish-killing water usage by 95% at the Westchester County plant.

Entergy spokesman Jerry Nappi said the court's decision determines how the utility company will "ultimately obtain a water-use permit that makes the most sense environmentally and economically for the area around Indian Point."

Entergy has balked at the $1.4billion price tag for the new cooling system. Nappi said the plant already has spent more than $100 million to protect fish by installing special screens to reduce the number of fish pulled inside.

The DEC estimates a new cooling system would cost $740 million, and $145 million a year to run - or 5% to 6% of Entergy's annual gross revenue.

Entergy makes more than $2 million a day - and more than $700 million a year - from electricity produced at Indian Point.

The court ruling was a victory for the DEC and the environmental group Riverkeeper, which have been waging court battles with Entergy for years over the fish kill. Riverkeeper's chief prosecutor is Robert Kennedy Jr.

Indian Point, 24 miles outside the city, is applying to renew its operating license and keep running until 2035. If the license is renewed, Riverkeeper and the DEC say, the power plant would be forced to build a cooling system if it wants to stay open.

Hearings on the new draft water-use permit for the plant, which would mandate closed-cycle cooling, are tentatively scheduled for next year.

Nappi said Entergy is weighing an appeal of the court ruling.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/07/03/2009-07-03_judge_rules_indian_point_fishkilling_cooling_process_must_stop.html

'Cheerleaders' for nuclear energy ignore facts

Talk about keepin' it real!

Chatham Star-Tribune

Letter to the Editor

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

The Virginia Uranium Inc. oligarchy continues to ignore and minimize the negative impacts of uranium mining and milling.

Equally disturbing is this industry's ongoing attempts to erode our civil rights and the legislators who are allowing this travesty.

Virginia Uranium has engaged a host of self-serving experts and VUI family members to write letters of support on their behalf.

Their letters speak, in generalities, of nuclear power and avoid mention of the negative impacts of uranium mining and milling on a community, region and state.

The Nuclear Energy Institute has joined the metastasizing Virginia Uranium Inc. supporters.

NEI project manager Suzanne Phelps weighs in with more of the same.

Ms. Phelps likes to "name drop," citing Gov. Kaine, President Obama and former EPA administrator Whitman as supporters of nuclear energy.

Do any of these folks have a uranium mine and mill in their neighborhoods?

She also says the uranium from Coles Hill could fuel Virginia for 65 years.

Phelps portrays VUI as a philanthropic organization regarding yellowcake dispersal.

Somehow I don't see all that yellowcake, or enriched uranium, being warehoused for decades for exclusive use by Virginia.

Phelps further comments, "That potential speaks volumes about the long-term economic opportunities that Pittsylvania County and area residents can derive from mining practices that embrace environmental stewardship and incorporate lessons learned from worldwide experience in this field."

It appears she has the answer to the question we've all been asking. Where are three places in the world, similar to our climate, watersheds and population where mining and milling have been done safely? How many jobs were created?

Perhaps she'll enlighten us in future epistles.

I especially like the "magic" in Phelp's quote: "Nuclear energy is cheap and clean, and we have plenty of it here in America and Virginia."

You dig up some rocks and there's your energy!

She neglects to mention the radioactive/hazardous wastes that are generated and stored for thousands of years as a result of mining, milling and nuclear power generation.

She also omits information regarding the cost of building a reactor and the tax dollars that subsidize, monitor and clean up after the industry.

We do not appreciate cheerleaders for nuclear energy. We crave factual information regarding mining and milling of uranium.

We deserve local and state representative who are bright enough to know the difference.

Karen B. Maute

Danville

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/06/24/chatham/opinion/opinion01.txt

Company Calls New Small Nuclear Reactor a 'Game Changer'

By KATHERINE LING and GREENWIRE

Published: June 10, 2009

A major manufacturer of power-generation equipment announced plans today to build a small nuclear reactor that company officials touted as a "potential game changer for the global nuclear market."

Babcock & Wilcox Co.'s 125-megawatt reactor would be significantly smaller than the average 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactor and is aimed at plugging a major "market gap," CEO Brandon Bethards said at a Washington press conference. The new reactor might come online as early as 2018.

What the company calls its "mPower" reactor would be used for smaller grids or limited electricity-demand areas, such as those of municipal districts or for individual industrial use. Demand has been rising for such reactors in developing countries whose transmission systems cannot handle large reactors. Other nuclear companies have explored scalable or "grid appropriate" reactors before but could not overcome issues of cost.

"Several technical and manufacturing innovations make this reactor a potential game changer for the global clean energy market," said Christofer Mowry, president and CEO at Babcock & Wilcox Modular Nuclear Energy LLC, the new unit in charge of the small reactor.

The mPower reactor would include independent "modular" units that could be manufactured on an assembly line, thus cutting manufacturing and construction costs, said John Fees, CEO of McDermott International, the parent company of Babcock & Wilcox. Units could be built and come online even as others are being built, he said, allowing power companies to start earning revenue faster.

"This brings not only lower installation base cost but also brings greater cost certainty" compared to the $6 billion to $8 billion large-reactor option, Fees said. He declined to name a price for mPower, but said it would be "under the $5,000 per megawatt" price that the industry has estimated for large reactors.

Babcock & Wilcox plans to submit engineering designs to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for certification by 2011.

The new reactor has attracted "early and broad customer interest," Mowry said. A consortium of regional municipal and cooperative utilities -- which he declined to name -- has signed a "memorandum of understanding" to explore the construction of reactors, he said.

The Tennessee Valley Authority is evaluating a potential site near the Clinch River in Roane County, Tenn., for the reactor and is a industrial consultant for Babcock & Wilcox, said Jack Bailey, TVA's vice president of nuclear generation development. TVA has not made any decisions about building a small reactor plant, however, Bailey added. Exelon Corp. is also advising the company on the design and licensing process but has not made any decisions about purchasing the mPower or examining any sites, said Craig Lambert, Exelon's director of engineering of New Business Generation.

NRC consideration

The mPower reactor is largely based on Generation III reactor technology that NRC is currently reviewing for certification, which should make the small reactor's licensing "conform to existing licensing protocol" and shorten the review time, Mowry said.

The company said it hopes to have a customer submit a combined construction and operating license for a small-scale plant by 2012, with construction beginning in 2015, Bethards said.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory is working on a small-scale reactor, and Westinghouse has been working on an advanced Generation IV small reactor, the International Reactor Innovative and Secure, which is under review at NRC. Westinghouse hopes to have the design certified by 2010, according to the company.

The mPower reactor would be contained below ground and will have passive safety systems, taking advantage of current Generation III technologies. It will have a five-year refueling cycle, and the spent fuel could be stored underground with the unit for up to 60 years, Babcock & Wilcox said.

The company plans to manufacture all mPower components in Virginia, Ohio and Indiana and other North American sites.

Joining Babcock & Wilcox executives at the press conference were Tennessee Sens. Lamar Alexander (R) and Bob Corker (R) and Reps. Lincoln Davis (D) and Zach Wamp (R), as well as Ohio Sen. George Voinovich (R).

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/10/10greenwire-company-calls-new-small-nuclear-reactor-a-game-45123.html

GOP Ticket Visits Abingdon

By David McGee
Staff Writer / Bristol Herald Courier
Published: June 2, 2009

ABINGDON, Va. – Republican gubernatorial nominee Bob McDonnell emphasized the importance of coal in the state’s energy future Monday, when he kicked off a day of campaign stops across the state.

Fresh from receiving their party’s nominations Saturday, McDonnell, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling and Ken Cuccinelli, nominee for attorney general, spoke to a crowd of about 40 here, during a hastily organized morning rally at Virginia Highlands Airport. It was the first of six events Monday in which the candidates emphasized differences with the Democratic Party.

“Coal is an important part of our energy plan,” McDonnell said later in a phone interview. “And the promise of clean coal is so important to Southwest Virginia. Coal will be a part of our energy program along with natural gas, nuclear, offshore drilling and the green initiatives like wind, biomass and renewables.” (emphasis mine...SB)

McDonnell said the state and nation already rely heavily on coal and he expects carbon sequestration and capture technology to drastically reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants.

“Once the CO2 is removed, the coal industry will boom. That is vital to Virginia because we have one of the nation’s largest natural deposits, especially with the new plant in Wise and likely the one in Surry County,” McDonnell said, referring to the construction of a coal-fired power plant in Wise County.

Continue reading this article here: http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/gop_ticket_visits_abingdon/24873/

NC Utility Improving Nuclear Plant Near Raleigh

AP 05.22.09

A North Carolina utility is making progress in upgrading equipment at a nuclear plant in order to meet federal safety standards.

The News & Observer of Raleigh reported Friday that Progress Energy is working to improve its Shearon Harris nuclear plant southwest of Raleigh.

Progress is making 45 safety changes at the nuclear plant as part of a five-year, $32 million project that is to be completed late next year.

Some of the changes are designed to meet new fire safety standards approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The newspaper reported one of the main problems concerns the material used to wrap electrical conduits, to ensure it can withstand fire damage.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/05/22/ap6455893.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a41:g26:r9:c0.000878:b24681688&partner=loomia

US [Congressional Panel] Rejects Nuclear in Renewable Power Goal

By Ayesha Rascoe

WASHINGTON, May 20 (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers pushing to include greater recognition for existing nuclear power in a national renewable energy standard failed to win new breaks for the industry when a U.S. congressional panel on Wednesday voted down an amendment to a controversial climate change bill.

The sweeping bill, which seeks to cap greenhouse gas emissions, includes a renewable energy mandate that would require utilities to generate 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources such as wind and solar by 2020.

Under the legislation sponsored by Democratic Representatives Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, utilities' renewable mandate would be reduced in proportion to the portion of any electricity sales from new nuclear plants, but not existing nuclear plants.

Republican Representative Cliff Stearns of Florida, who offered the failed amendment, said the measure would have helped states meet the renewable electricity standard with a source that has no carbon emissions.

Waxman argued that the bill was not discriminating against nuclear power, but that nuclear was not renewable energy because it requires uranium, a limited resource. Also, he said the renewable standard was aimed at promoting new power sources and technology.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is in its third day of debate of a nearly 1,000-page climate change bill, which seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

The panel approved a measure that would require the State Department and U.S. Trade Representative to annually prepare and publicize a report on whether China and India have adopted greenhouse gas emission reduction programs as stringent as those found in the United States.

An amendment requiring the Energy Department to develop rules for enforcing any national energy efficiency building code established through this legislation was also approved.

Republicans have blasted the legislation, warning that it could drastically curb the United States' economic growth by making U.S. companies less competitive internationally with countries such as China and India that will likely not have strong climate change regulations.

"A cap and trade program will never be made to work in an economy as diverse and complex as the United States. It's just not possible. It's going to cost a lot of money and a lot of jobs," Republican Representative Joe Barton of Texas told reporters on the sidelines of the hearing.

A poll conducted by Reuters found that Democrats have the votes to get the climate legislation passed by the committee. Of the 59 members on the House committee, 30 lawmakers, all of them Democrats would definitely vote "yes" or were likely to support the bill, according to the survey.

Barton predicted, however, that the Waxman-Markey bill would not make it into law.

"This cap and trade exercise that we're about to engage in, is an exercise in futility on their side. Even if they muscle it out of committee, it's not going anywhere."

The heart of the historic bill would set up a system limiting carbon dioxide and other pollutants by gradually reducing the amount of greenhouse gases that utilities, steelmakers, oil refineries and other companies can emit. Businesses would be required to acquire an ever-decreasing number carbon pollution permits.

A separate report from the Energy Information Administration on Wednesday said U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels fell by 2.8 percent in 2008, the largest drop since the agency began reporting greenhouse gases. The agency said high oil prices and the slowing economy were factors in the decline.

(Additional reporting by Tom Doggett, Richard Cowan; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN20533760

Virginia Energy's Tremendous Push for Uranium Mining Sells Out Southside

Oh, my God!! Virginia Energy, an energy coalition, has jumped on the "mine, baby, mine" bandwagon with both feet! Whew! Scare tactics, misinformation, half-truths, major-league spin...all timed to coincide with the Study Commission's meeting next week This video specifically talks about the uranium deposit in Pittsylvania County and how mining it will save Virginia! It even shows the lane into Coles Hill, Register & Bee headlines`and local unemployment statistics,. It calls on folks to support the mining study!! Virginia Energy is selling out Southside!

Southside, we have one week to get the rest of the Commonwealth on board the anti-uranium mining train...the mining study is going to focus on, and eventually open, the entire state to mining and at this point, most of Virginia is being portrayed as either disinterested or mining-friendly. That message really has to change...FAST.

Take a look...it's simply incredible!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFScxZ8VozU

From the video's tag on YouTube...

"America is too dependent for its energy on unstable, even adversarial countries like Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. This puts America's national security and energy future at risk. Virginia's abundant, untapped supplies of vital energy resources can be part of the solution and will create thousands of new jobs. Find out more at www.VirginiaEnergy.org."

Kaine predicts wave of environmental action on horizon

It's so apparent to me that this man has no interest in Virginia. His heart is elsewhere...maybe from whence he came...but it's certainly not in Virginia.

By Scott Harper
The Virginian-Pilot
© May 7, 2009

NORFOLK

About 10 minutes into his speech Wednesday night, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine stripped off his suit jacket, rolled up his white sleeves and jumped squarely from his prepared remarks.

"I'm getting warmed up," he told a crowd of about 300 people inside Old Dominion University's Webb Center. "I always do when I talk about this subject."

That subject is the environment, an issue he has put a focus on this year, his final year in office.

The environmental and energy initiative has its own name - Renew Virginia - and despite a cash crunc h in Richmond and an economic crisis nationwide, the governor said he still has big plans for going green in 2009.

Kaine hinted at some major changes coming to the Chesapeake Bay cleanup, steps that he and other mid-Atlantic governors will announce next week at a summit at Mount Vernon.

That suggestion brought a smile to the face of Will Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Baker has been pressing Kaine and the Obama administration to make the Bay a national priority and speed up its restoration, which began in 1983 and still is struggling.

The Bay Foundation co-sponsored Wednesday night's lecture as part of its Blue Planet Forum on environmental issues facing Virginia.

Kaine ticked off a list of state programs that soon will receive federal stimulus money - $75 million for energy efficiencies and green buildings; $39 million in incentives for solar, thermal and small wind projects; $5 million for alternative energy research - all dedicated to environmental progress.

He predicted that, as money trickles out of Washington over the next two years, Virginia and other states will experience "one of the greatest unleashings of American ingenuity" on new energy technology since the dawn of the combustion engine.

The governor said he intends to push ahead against two big pollutants affecting the Bay and impairing hundreds of Virginia streams - farm runoff and urb an stormwater.

The state is rewriting its stormwater regulations and hopes to complete this year these "extremely innovative" rules against tainted rainwaters that wash off parking lots, roofs, lawns, streets and gardens and pass oil, fertilizers and chemicals into the Bay.

In response to questions, Kaine said developing an offshore wind farm off Virginia Beach "is a spectacular idea."

Oil and gas drilling in those same waters should be confined to exploration only, "to see what resources are really out there," he said.

He urged expansion of nuclear energy in Virginia and defended his position to support a new, major coal-fired power plant in southwestern Virginia over objections from environmentalists.

The governor also said that if a study shows that uranium mining cannot be done safely in Virginia's wet climate, "maybe we ought to keep the ban in place and move on."

Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340, scott.harper@pilotonline.com

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/05/kaine-predicts-wave-environmental-action-horizon

Oldest US nuclear plant resumes normal operations

May 4, 2009

LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. (AP) — Normal operations have resumed at the nation's oldest nuclear power plant a week after it was shut down because of a failed transformer.

Officials at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in New Jersey had manually stopped its reactor without incident April 25. Crews repaired the transformer and modified its power supply.

Plant spokesman David Benson says the outage was extended so crews could further prepare the plant for summer operations.

The crews also found and stopped two small leaks in underground pipes believed to be the source of a weak radioactive substance recently detected on the plant's property in Lacey Township, about 60 miles east of Philadelphia and 75 miles south of New York City. They replaced the pipes.

Oyster Creek opened in December 1969. It generates enough electricity to power 600,000 homes a year.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jyqEYvzK3LTLq2JFUC_ndELC3yKAD97V10CO0

VA Tech, Company Aim For Safer Nuclear Energy

Wow...an experimental nuclear facility in SW Virginia! Coincidence?

The university and ADNA Corp. want to improve efficiency and cut down on waste.

By Greg Esposito

May 3, 2009

Virginia Tech is teaming with a company with Southwest Virginia ties on a project that could have far-reaching consequences in the field of nuclear energy.

The university and the Los Alamos, N.M.-based ADNA Corp. are expected to announce a memorandum of understanding today to construct a pilot facility to test technology to produce safer, less-costly and more-efficient nuclear energy.

The new design combines technology old and new -- but all proven to work -- including molten salt reactors tested in the 1960s and projects by ADNA founder and Roanoke native Charles Bowman that integrated accelerator technology into nuclear reactors in the 1990s.

"The components exist," Tech physics professor Bruce Vogelaar said. "What needs to happen is the integration of the systems and the demonstration that things work as anticipated. It's not a question of whether the technology, in principle, will work. The question is, 'Does it work as well as we anticipate?' "

If it does, the result will be nuclear power plants that produce more energy with less waste and don't result in the separation of plutonium from uranium during the process. Plutonium is a nuclear power byproduct that can be used to produce weapons. The production of it through the process of creating nuclear energy has been a point of contention in nuclear proliferation monitoring for years.

After a long career in nuclear science, Bowman retired in 1997 and founded ADNA -- short for Accelerator Driven Neutron Applications. A 1956 graduate of Tech who got his Ph.D. from Duke University in 1961, he splits his time between Los Alamos and Franklin County, where his family farm and some ADNA facilities are located.

The work between Tech and ADNA is the next step in research the company did with Duke and the Los Alamos National Laboratory. It will involve soliciting federal grants, and Vogelaar said he is optimistic that stimulus money for energy innovation could be a source of funding. Tech is contributing $225,000 in seed money.

Bowman began working with Vogelaar about three years ago. The Tech professor was a collaborator on a couple of experiments involving ADNA and Duke that measured neutron production from graphite. But the memorandum of understanding is the first official collaboration between Bowman and his alma mater.

There are several sites in Virginia, New Mexico, Tennessee and Nevada that qualify as candidates for the location of the pilot plant, Vogelaar said.

Bowman said the design phase of the demonstration facility could take about two years and the entire project about seven years.

"Virginia Tech is an excellent partner in this because this technology has moved to, pretty much, to an engineering phase," Bowman said. "So what we have to do is bring engineering to bear on the design of the demonstration facility. ... The science at this point is more in the area of refinement."

http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/203552