|
|
||
|
|
Nuclear Power
|
|||
|
Small
Modular Reactors: What is a small modular reactor (SMR)?
MidAmerican Energy has suggested its preferred nuclear reactor -- should the company ever build a new nuclear reactor in Iowa -- would be an SMR. The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy has posted an informative article about SMRs and their risks. Read the article. Building Small Modular Reactors Senseless "The highly touted 'nuclear renaissance' is ending with a whimper," Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, wrote in the Knoxville News Sentinel. "Private investors don't want the risk of the huge investments new reactors require. At the same time, the price of other energy generation sources, including natural gas and wind energy is lower than new nuclear." Read the entire article at cleanenergy.org. Heat Wave Heats Up Cooling Water The 2012 heat wave created problems for nuclear plants across the Midwest, as cooling water temperatures rise above levels allowed by regulators. Read the New York Times article. Chapter Files Petition to Revoke fort Calhoun License On June 15, 2012, the Iowa Chapter filed a petition with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) asking it to revoke the license to operate the troubled Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant near Omaha, NE. The petition cited a history of problems dating back to 1992 and safety concerns. The plant, operated by the Omaha Public Power District, was encircled by flood waters after the Missouri River flooded in June 2010. Although the plant was shut down at the time for refueling, it remains shut down while the NRC continues to inspect and investigate flood-related consequences. Inspectors continually uncover additional problems with the plant. Read the petition. Senate Nuclear Bill Passes Committee; On Debate Calendar Two days after the first anniversary of the Fukushima disaster, the Senate Commerce Committee, determined to expand nuclear power in Iowa, amended and passed HF561 by an 8-7 vote on March 13, 2012. Learn more. UPDATE: Session Ended without Senate Considering Nuclear Power Bill Find out more.
Statement of Mark Cooper, Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis Institute for Energy and the Environment, Vermont Law School On HF561 (early recovery and special treatment of nuclear reactor costs) as passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee Mark Cooper March 19, 2012
The
effort by the Senate Commerce Committee to put a consumer protection
band aid over a high caliber bullet hole in the heart of traditional
ratepayer protection only makes the absurdity of the early cost
recovery for nuclear reactors even more apparent.
Because
the bill removes nuclear power from “traditional ratemaking
principles or traditional cost recovery mechanisms,” consumer
bills will increase dramatically. As passed out of Committee:
·
Mid-American
customers will be forced to pay for nuclear reactors long before
they produce any electricity with no hope of recovering those
prepayments should the reactors not be completed.
·
The
IUB is not allowed to reject the utility-determined level of
prepayments because there are less costly alternatives available.
·
Although
the risk of building and operating a nuclear reactor is shifted to
ratepayers, the utility is guaranteed a rate of return that will be
higher than it earns on other projects.
This
mismatch of risk and reward gives the utility strong incentives to
maximize profits at the expense of ratepayers and strips the Utility
Board of the powers necessary to protect ratepayers. Notwithstanding
the amendments, the harmful effects identified by the Staff of the
Utility Board in the original bill are still in place.
·
By conferring a special advantage on nuclear, it threatens to
distort the utility and regulatory decision making process and gives
utilities an incentive to choose investments and make construction
decisions that harm ratepayers.
·
Beyond the initial choice of projects, shifting the risk of
nuclear reactor construction onto the backs of ratepayers creates an
ongoing problem because it diminishes the incentive to drive a hard
bargain with vendors that protects ratepayers or recover costs from
joint owners.
·
By excusing nuclear reactors from rigorous comparative
analysis of alternatives, it all but guarantees less costly
alternatives will be passed over.
·
Because nuclear reactors are so risky and impossible to
finance in normal capital market, the utilities are pushing for
advanced and guaranteed recovery of all costs, but certainty denies
regulators the flexibility that is needed in an uncertain and
rapidly changing environment and ties the hands of the IUB in its
efforts to balance the interest of ratepayers and utility
shareholders.
·
The need to accelerate cost recovery creates severe
intergenerational inequities in cost recovery, violating the
fundamental principle that those who consume the output of a plant
should bear its costs.
·
Having guaranteed utilities cost recovery on an annual basis,
the IUB will be under greater pressure to approve “incremental”
additions to cost even when those costs are the result of utility
error.
In
its press release, MidAmerican trumpets the fact that “MidAmerican
Energy Iowa’s electric customers have enjoyed stable base
electricity rates for 16 years” and takes credit for that
accomplishment. It conveniently ignores the important role that
traditional ratemaking principles and traditional cost recovery
mechanism have played in ensuring utilities deliver least cost
power. By excusing the most risky, high cost options available today
from those principles, this bill destroys the consumer protections
that have produced stable rates in the past. The inevitable result
will be that the future rates paid by MidAmerican electricity
customers will be higher than they could and should be.
Blue Ribbon Commission meets in Minneapolis
The Blue Ribbon Commission On America’s Nuclear Future met in Minneapolis at the end of October. The Commission was chartered to recommend a new strategy for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Wally Taylor, the Chapter's Legal chair, and Pam Mackey-Taylor, the Chapter's Energy chair, attended the meeting. The pair also submitted comments to the Commission on behalf of the Chapter. Read their comments.
You can also see the Commission's draft report.
FOE Challenges Buffett on Proposed Nuclear Plant Friends of the Earth placed an advertisement in Wednesday's edition of The Omaha World-Herald that criticized MidAmerican Energy for wanting to “raise Iowans’ electricity rates to fund a new reactor that might never get built.” The World-Herald quotes Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs) as saying legislation enabling MidAmerican Energy to proceed with plans for its proposed nuclear power plant has a 50 percent chance of passing. Read the article.
House Passes Nuclear Power Bill On the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown, the Iowa House of Representatives adopted HF561 setting the stage for MidAmerican Energy to proceed with plans to build a nuclear power facility at an undisclosed location. The Senate will take up the issue later. (See action alert below.) Read more about the nuclear power debate.
Nuclear
Power: Not the Answer
Senators Question Moving Forward with Nuclear Bill Nine Iowa Senators wrote to their colleagues expressing their concern about a bill that would enable MidAmerican Energy to charge ratepayers for a nuclear power plant that may or may not be built. Read the letter.
Nuclear Power Subsidies: The Gift that Keeps on Taking The Union of Concerned Scientists recently released its report titled Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies. The first paragraph states, "conspicuously absent from industry press releases and briefing memos touting nuclear power’s potential as a solution to global warming is any mention of the industry’s long and expensive history of taxpayer subsidies and excessive charges to utility ratepayers. These subsidies not only enabled the nation’s existing reactors to be built in the first place, but have also supported their operation for decades." Read the rest of the report.
Why Nuclear Power Doesn't Make Sense As the disasters at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima have shown, nuclear power can cause catastrophic damage to land, human health, and our food supply. We should pursue our cleanest, quickest, safest, and cheapest energy options first: Nuclear power comes out last in every one of those categories. Here's why nuclear power doesn't make sense:
New
nuclear reactors, small or conventionally large, are a huge financial
risk. These risks are backed up by both historical and current cost
analyses that indicate a steadily increasing price-tag.
Alternatives are far cheaper, even according to nuclear utility
estimates. Subsidies
and incentives for nuclear reactors not only distort the market by
creating the illusion of cost-competitiveness, they entice utilities to
undertake riskier behavior by avoiding a least-cost approach.
Small modular reactors do not solve the fundamental financial
problems associated with conventional reactors, but instead may
exacerbate them.
Enabling
the Nuclear Renaissance is Backward Energy Policy Nuclear energy has increasingly been cast as a silver bullet to the realities of global warming and the pressing need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. As memories of the accident at Three Mile Island fade and out of control cost overruns from the 1980s become more distant, nuclear energy has undergone a political makeover by its supporters. In reality though, despite the temptation to label nuclear reactors as a viable solution to global warming and meeting our electricity demands, nuclear power is a bad choice. It is significantly more expensive than cleaner options, produces waste that contributes to an unresolved problem of long-term exposure, opens the door for proliferation, and perhaps most importantly, will not solve global warming. Read more here.
Last Updated 04.02.13 |
Other Energy Related Issues:
Chapter Documents Read about SF390/HF561, legislation that will enable MidAmerican Energy to begin charging ratepayers for a nuclear power plant that may never be built.
Iowa Organization Documents Iowa Public Interest Research Group: "Unacceptable Risk: Two Decades of 'Close Calls, Leaks and Other Problems at U.S. Nuclear Reactors"The Cedar Rapids Gazette: Drawbacks, jobs tied to proposed nuclear plant The Des Moines Register: MidAmerican president: Iowans face 10 percent rate increase for nuclear plant
Opinions
Nuclear
energy policy: a really unfortunate sausage Reports Nuclear Socialism Comes to the Heartland of America: Early Cost Recovery for New Nuclear Reactors in Iowa and the Return of Electricity Rate Shock by Mark Cooper, Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis, Institute for Energy and the Environment, Vermont Law School
Regional and National News
Nebraska nuclear plant not restarting soon, by Josh Funk, Bloomberg Businessweek News, July 20, 2012 "Regulators bear down on nuke plant," by Nancy Gaarder, Omaha World-Herald, December 14, 2011. OPPD Submits Flood Recovery Action Plan The Omaha Public Power District has submitted its Flooding Recovery Action Plan to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Selected actions in the plan will be included in a Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) from the NRC that must be satisfactorily completed prior to OPPD restarting the Fort Calhoun Station nuclear power plant. Read the plan.
OPPD's Flooding Costs in Third Month Reach $44.5 million According to the Omaha World-Herald, Omaha Public Power District has spent $44.5 million protecting its Fort Calhoun nuclear power station from Missouri River flooding. Read the article.
NRC Hears from OPPD on Fort Calhoun On July 27, 2011, representatives of the Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) met with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) personnel in Omaha, to discuss post-flooding recovery actions for Fort Calhoun Station. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss OPPD’s plans and actions for identifying and assessing impacts of the long-term flooding on plant structures and equipment prior to the future restart of Fort Calhoun Station. During the meeting, OPPD representatives discussed post-flooding recovery actions they plan to take prior to restarting the plant. See the meeting summary and presentations by both NRC and OPPD. Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant cask building partially underwater Photo Credit: Tom Brunett/Arthur Hu/Jeff RenseRead Climate Wire's report on the nuclear regulatory confrontation between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Omaha Public Power District regarding flood defenses for the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant Fukushima still spewing massive radiation plumes; America in ‘huge trouble,’ says nuclear expert, The Watchers, May 5, 2012 Fukushima Now Radiating Everyone: 'Unspeakable' Reality 'Will Impact All Of Humanity'
Australia's CBS exposed the "unspeakable"
realities of the Japanese catastrophe in its 60 Minutes program Sunday
night during which leading nuclear scientist Dr. Michio Kaku said
radiation from Fukushima will impact of all of humanity. The nuclear
energy power industry violation of the right to health is apparent
throughout the new Australian report. See
the video. Red Wing (MN) Republican Eagle: Study: Nuclear plant threatens drinking water New York Times: U.S. Sees Array of New Threats at Japan’s Nuclear Plant TIME: Why No Nukes? The Real Cost of U.S. Nuclear Power The Atlantic: Atomic Snowflakes by Mark Cooper, Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis, Institute for Energy and the Environment, Vermont Law School, November 2009
Small Modular Reactors: No Solution for the Cost, Safety, and Waste Problems of Nuclear Power by Arjun Makhijani (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research) and Michele Boyd (Physicians for Social Responsibility)
|
