Author Archive

March 9, 2011

By Tracy Idell Hamilton
San Antonio Express-News

Anti-nuclear activists gathered in front of City Hall on Tuesday to object to CPS Energy’s recent decision to discuss buying more power from the two reactors that might be add to the South Texas Project.

Two dozen people held banners and signs like "Solar Sí, Nuclear No" as speakers described their disbelief that CPS Energy once again is talking to erstwhile partner NRG Energy about buying more power from the reactors, presuming they’re built.

"We’re outraged," said Amanda Haas of the Esperanza Peace and Justice Center. "Why are we back in the same place we were two years ago?"

Opponents ticked off a litany of reasons CPS should not buy more power, including the specter of increased costs, more nuclear waste and the risk to American taxpayers who would be on the hook if the project defaults after getting federal loan guarantees.

"Nuclear was a bad idea then, and it’s a bad idea now," said Maria Berriozábal, a former city councilwoman and social justice activist. "CPS Energy can expect an angry citizen outcry if they decide to seriously consider NRG’s offer."

NRG hasn’t made an offer just yet.

On Monday, a team of CPS executives met with representatives from the investor-owned utility for the first time since CEO Doyle Beneby received board approval to hear NRG’s pitch to either increase the utility’s investment in the project or buy more power for an agreed-on price for a certain number of years.

CPS owns 7.6 percent of the project, or about 200 megawatts.

Beneby has said he’s more inclined toward a purchase power agreement than an increased share of the project, because it affords the utility more protections.

Beneby says he’s listening to NRG because he needs 851 megawatts to replace those lost when he shutters the Deely coal plants, likely by 2018. He wants those megawatts to be cheap and have lower emissions than coal, and is looking at nuclear, natural gas and other options.

Opponents Tuesday also focused on the messy divorce between CPS and NRG last year, asking why CPS would even consider talking to a group it accused of malfeasance and fraud in a $32 billion lawsuit.

That lawsuit never was fought. Instead, the parties agreed to litigate an earlier suit that sought to clarify CPS’ rights if it chose to pull out of the crumbling nuclear deal. But CPS must now live with the negative portrait it painted of its former partner.

Beneby, who wasn’t with CPS at the time, said the utility has "400 million reasons" to listen to NRG, referring to the roughly $400 million the utility has invested in the expansion.

"That’s a huge amount of money to get nothing for," he said.

He’s been meeting with community groups of all stripes since he arrived last summer; he met with several nuclear opponents Monday and a group of business people last week.

He said their concerns were almost the exact opposite: The business people "wanted to know why I was retiring a coal plant that is producing cheap power, and why CPS entered into solar and wind deals with no public input."

Beneby said he will bring any proposed deal to the Board of Trustees for approval.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

ADAM GOLDMAN, Associated Press,
BETSY BLANEY, Associated Press
San Antonio Express-News

Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, 20, is shown in this undated photo made available by the Lubbock County Sheriff’s Office Thursday, Feb. 24, 2011. The Justice Department said Thursday that the student from Saudi Arabia studying chemical engineering in Texas purchased explosive chemicals over the Internet as part of a plan to hide bomb materials inside dolls and baby carriages to blow up dams, nuclear plants or the Dallas home of former President George W. Bush. Photo: Lubbock County Sheriff / AP

Separately, Con-way Freight, the shipping company, notified Lubbock police and the FBI the same day with similar suspicions because it appeared the order wasn’t intended for commercial use. Within weeks, federal agents had traced Aldawsari’s other online purchases, discovered extremist posts he made on the Internet and secretly searched his apartment, computer and e-mail accounts and read his diary, according to court records.

Neighbors in Lubbock said they didn’t remember seeing Aldawsari but noticed an unusual number of people in the hallway the day of his arrest.

"That’s so scary," said Sally Dierschke, a 21-year-old senior at Texas Tech. "That’s my neighbor. … Of course, I’m scared."

Ahmid Obaidan, a senior at Tennessee State University who also is from Saudi Arabia, met Aldawsari in Nashville, Tennessee, when Aldawsari was studying at an English language center at Vanderbilt University.

"He was quiet. I thought he was a good guy," Obaidan said.

The FBI said the North Carolina company reported the attempts to purchase 1.3 gallons (4.9 liters) of phenol, a chemical that can be used to make the explosive trinitrophenol, also known as TNP, or picric acid. Aldawsari falsely told the supplier he was associated with a university and wanted the phenol for "off-campus, personal research," according to court records. Frustrated by questions, Aldawsari canceled his order and later e-mailed himself instructions for producing phenol, the documents say.

TNP, the chemical explosive that Aldawsari was suspected of trying to make, has approximately the same destructive power as TNT. FBI bomb experts said the amounts in the Aldawsari case would have yielded almost 15 pounds (6.8 kilograms) of explosive. That’s about the same amount used per bomb in the London subway attacks that killed scores of people in July 2005.

Prosecutors said that in December, he bought 30 liters of concentrated nitric acid for about $450 from QualiChem Technologies in Georgia, and three gallons of concentrated sulfuric acid that are combined to make TNP. The FBI later found the chemicals in Aldawsari’s apartment as well as beakers, flasks, wiring, a Hazmat suit and clocks.

A Saudi industrial company, which was not identified in court documents, was paying Aldawsari’s tuition and living expenses in the U.S.

Casey declined to go into why the arrest occurred when it did.

"We just felt it was the right time," he said.

___

Goldman reported from Washington.

June 10, 2010

By Kris Bevill
Ethanol Producer Magazine

In response to a Congressional mandate requiring it to conduct a review of the U.S. DOE’s loan guarantee program, the Government Accountability Office has completed an evaluation of the program and released a report outlining its findings. Several serious flaws were identified with the program, including evidence that the loan process is being implemented inconsistently and that nuclear projects are favored over other proposals.

"The department is implementing the program in a way that treats applicants inconsistently, lacks systematic mechanisms for applicants to appeal its decisions or for applicants to provide feedback to DOE, and risks excluding some potential applicants unnecessarily," the GAO stated in its report.

Specifically, the GAO found that in at least five of 10 cases in which the DOE made conditional commitments, it did so before obtaining final reports from external reviewers. In one instance, the agency appears to have made a conditional commitment to a project before receiving any external reports. The program procedures typically require applicants to pay for external reviews. Therefore, projects that were allowed to advance without being required to conduct external reports also were not required to invest the same amount of capital as other projects.

Additionally, the GAO found that the DOE allowed nuclear projects not selected for due diligence to remain in a queue, while applicants proposing projects using other technologies were rejected. This finding is particularly significant, because rejected applicants that reapply for the program are required to pay application fees of up to $800,000. Projects that are held in a queue are not required to pay additional application fees and are also first in line for funding if the program receives additional loan guarantee authority.

The DOE also provided nuclear project applicants with information on how their projects ranked compared to other applicants, but did not provide rankings to any other types of projects, according to the GAO report. By providing this information to nuclear projects, the applicants were able to size up their competition and determine their chances of receiving funding before investing 75 percent of the application fees. Finally, it was determined that the DOE allowed one nuclear applicant additional time to meet technical and financial requirements, including requirements to prove the technology is commercially ready.

The DOE was provided a draft of the GAO’s report and admitted that the loan guarantee program is in need of improvement, but denied the allegations that it treats applicants inconsistently.

Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis said the report provides proof that the program needs to be improved in order to provide financial assistance for emerging technologies such as cellulosic ethanol. "With tight credit markets, the government must help early stage cellulosic ethanol producers secure the financing they need to prove their revolutionary technology," he said. "Yet, as the GAO has clearly identified, the energy department’s loan guarantee program is not working properly and that is especially true for cellulosic ethanol. Since the [DOE] began administering this program six years ago, there is yet to be a single loan guarantee issued to a producer of cellulosic ethanol."

The GAO recommended that the DOE’s program leaders develop performance goals for the program that reflect its policy goals and activities, revise the process so that applicants are treated consistently, and develop mechanisms for applicants to appeal decisions and provide feedback on the program. The DOE said it is taking steps to address the issues raised in the GAO’s report.

Read the GOA review of the U.S. DOE’s loan guarantee program.

LET’S GET TO WORK….TELL CONGRESS: NO WAY!

February 15, 2011

Dear Friends,

Yesterday, President Obama released his Fiscal Year 2012 budget and I’m afraid the overriding message is: we’ve got to get to work!

Even while slashing funds for heating assistance for the poor and cleaning up the Great Lakes, the President’s budget–like last year–proposes to triple the loan "guarantee" program for new nuclear reactor construction. That would mean another $36 Billion in loan "guarantees" for nuclear utilities to buy reactors from wealthy foreign companies like Areva and Toshiba, while the poor shiver through the winter.

Tell Congress: NO WAY!

In the fiscal fantasy world of the federal budget, it’s important to note that, in budget terms, $36 Billion in loan "guarantees" shows up as only $360 million in actual spending. But $360 million is still a big chunk of change, and would buy an awful lot of heat for an awful lot of people.

And in the real world, those "guarantees" are actually taxpayer loans. The money leaves the federal treasury and only comes back if the project succeeds. During the first go-round of nuclear construction, fewer than half of the reactors proposed were actually ever built and generated income–and that’s when the utilities had to pay for reactors without government help. There is no reason to believe things will work out any better for the industry this time around–especially if we taxpayers are liable for the bill.

Not only does the Administration want to increase nuclear construction loans, it also is proposing some $500 million over five years to develop new "small modular reactors." But really, when we’re cutting funding to clean the Great Lakes, why should we be adding funding for new polluting power plants? And if these reactors are economically viable (hint: they’re not), why shouldn’t the companies involved develop them with their own money?

Of course, the Republicans–especially their Tea party wing–want to cut even more from the federal budget than President Obama. But will they be willing to stand up to the nuclear industry and cut this proposal?

President Obama made the same proposal to triple the nuclear loan program last year. And he didn’t get a single dime. Your actions combined with the dedicated work of the small group of people working on this issue in Washington to stop the increases completely.

Now we’ve got to do it again. Write your Congressmembers here and tell them no money for nuclear loans, no money for new reactors–small, large, or in-between! We can’t afford them and we don’t want them. When we all raise our voices, we are extremely loud. And we need each of you to raise your voice now.

We will keep you informed about the progress of these proposals in the weeks and months to come.

Finally, if you haven’t yet signed the petition to the Prime Minister of Japan to stop their government’s funding of proposed new reactors in Texas, please do so now here. Organizations can sign on by sending their info to us at nirsnet(at)nirs.org.

Thanks for all you do,

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
nirsnet@nirs.org
www.nirs.org

P.S. We encourage you to "like" us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter (@nirsnet). You’ll find a lot more information, news items, and actions than we could ever provide you via e-mail.

January 31, 2011

By MATTHEW L. WALD
New York Times

WASHINGTON — In his State of the Union address, President Obama proposed giving the nuclear construction business a type of help it has never had, a role in a quota for clean energy. But recent setbacks in a hoped-for “nuclear renaissance” raise questions about how much of a role nuclear power can play.

Of four reactor projects identified by the Energy Department in 2009 as the most likely candidates for federal loan guarantees, only two are moving forward. At a third, in Calvert Cliffs, Md., there has been no public sign of progress since the lead partner withdrew in October and the other partner said it would seek a replacement.

And at the fourth, in Texas, a would-be builder has been driven to try something never done before in nuclear construction: finding a buyer for the electricity before the concrete is even poured. Customers are not rushing forward, given that the market is awash in generating capacity and an alternative fuel, natural gas, is currently cheap.

Read more at the New York Times web site.