Archive for the ‘Press Releases’ Category

For Immediate Release

January 16, 2009

Contacts:
Karen Hadden, 512-797-8481
Cyrus Reed, 512-740-4086, 512-477-1729
Tom “Smitty” Smith, 512-637-9455

Download press release in pdf format for printing

Austin, TX – A recent report finds that new nuclear power is not economically competitive. The report, entitled Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power by power plant cost expert Craig Severance states that, “The cost estimates for new nuclear power plants put them among the most expensive private projects ever undertaken in the history of the world.”

“This report explains how utilities and the nuclear industry are underestimating nuclear costs,” said Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. “Texas utilities say that their responsibility is to provide affordable, reliable power, but nuclear power falls short on both counts.”

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 2008 data has shown nuclear power to cost between $4,500 – $7,500/kW, the most expensive way to generate electricity.

The new study finds that nuclear costs would be even higher, at $8,900 – $10,500/kW. Generation costs are likely to range from 25-30 cents/kWh. The report states that “adding new nuclear power – with costs for generation alone that are 2 to 5 times total retail electric rates now in place – will have a dramatic upward effect on electricity rates.”

The “all-in” analysis included construction cost escalations and the cost of financing during construction. Prices of steel, concrete, copper, labor and reactor technology can all impact nuclear reactor costs.

The report warns that nuclear power could negatively impact customers, noting that “if a utility chooses an option with significant risks of failure to meet its projected costs and timetable, severe consequences could ensue in the form of higher rates or, in the worst case, service interruptions.” This situation could also downgrade utility credit ratings and stymie local economic growth.

A recent Texas Public Utilities Commission report written by ITRON found that Texas could reduce electricity use by 23% through energy efficiency and save nearly $12 billion on electric bills. Efficiency measures would save the state $2 on electric bills for every dollar invested.

“Energy efficiency saves money and resources, and should be our first priority,” said Cyrus Reed, Conservation Director of the Lone Star Sierra Club. “Solar, wind, and geothermal energy are significantly less expensive than nuclear power, and don’t come with the risks of safety, proliferation, and radioactive waste.”

Six nuclear reactors proposed for three sites in Texas are moving forward in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing process – the South Texas (Nuclear) Project expansion planned in Matagorda County, Luminant (formerly TXU) expansion planned in Somervell County, and a new plant proposed by Exelon in Victoria County.

Luminant has admitted to a price tag that could reach $22 billion for their two proposed Comanche Peak reactors south of Fort Worth.

“Last time, Comanche Peak reactors ran ten times over budget and were years late coming online,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, Director of Public Citizen. “More nuclear reactors would cause electric rates to increase substantially.”

“Nuclear industry leaders have said no new nuclear power plants can be built without federal loan guarantees. It makes no sense to use taxpayer dollars to “bail in” an industry, which has relied for decades on subsidies and handouts. The nuclear industry is not economically viable on its own, much less competitive with other energy sources,” continued Smith. The report notes that coal, natural gas, solar and wind generation have been able to obtain private financing and don’t have to rely on federal loan guarantees.

The report also notes that delays and citizen opposition to reactors can impact costs. There will be legal opposition to all of the nuclear reactors planned for Texas and so far the path has not been smooth:

• Last year an indefinite suspension was given of the hearing for NRG’s South Texas Project (STP) reactors as a result of a petition filed by SEED Coalition. Legal proceedings stalled.
• Austin, partial (16%) owner of existing STP reactors 1&2, walked away from participating in the two additional planned reactors.
• Due to citizen opposition CPS Energy in San Antonio had to reduce their rate hike and take nuclear power out of the rate hike in order to get it passed.
• Exelon had to switch the design for reactors planned for a new site south of Victoria.
• Citizens in North Texas raised concerns over environmental issues as well the process for the environmental scoping meeting held Jan. 6, 2009. Only 12 days notice were given, including Christmas and New Year’s Day. Some people on the notification list never received email notices.

See Craig A. Severance’s study “”Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power”-

• climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-new-nuclear-power-plants
  or
• www.NukeFreeTexas.org/downloads/nuclear_costs_2009.pdf

See the Texas Public Utilities Commission report by consulting firm I-tron “Assessment of the Feasible and Achievable Levels of Electricity Savings from Investor Owned Utilities in Texas: 2009-2018”

www.puc.state.tx.us/rules/rulemake/33487/EE_Potential_Study.pdf

###

For Immediate Release
January 5th, 2009

Contacts:
Karen Hadden, 512-797-8481
Cyrus Reed, 512-474-0801

Download press release in pdf format for printing

An NRC Environmental Scoping Meeting will be held on Jan. 6th in Glen Rose, Texas to take comment on the environmental impact study for two nuclear reactors proposed for the existing Comanche Peak site. A coalition of environmental and consumer groups and their members will be telling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Luminant (formerly TXU) that nuclear plants are “too risky, too expensive and too dangerous” to help Texas meet its power needs, and makes no sense when clean, safe, affordable options exist. The coalition of groups said they only learned of the hastily called public meeting to seek input on environmental issues on December 24th.

“We’ve been down this road before,” noted Cyrus Reed, Conservation Director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. “The utility industry sold Texas on Comanche Peak and the South Texas Project and consumers have been paying the ‘stranded’ costs ever since, even as valuable water resources are expended and radioactive waste piles up on-site.”

Luminant proposes to build two more nuclear reactors at the existing Comanche Peak nuclear site near Glen Rose, in Somervell County, using an unproven, untested technology known as USAPWR.

“The design of the reactors has not been certified and has never been built anywhere in the world. Why should Texas serve as guinea pigs for a dangerous radioactive experiment?” asked Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. “Design problems as well as human error led to numerous problems and shutdowns of Comanche Peak reactors in the past. The competence and character of Luminant need to be examined closely since the history of the existing reactors is disastrous. In the past, there was a chance to fix nuclear reactor construction problems before an operating license was issued, but that safeguard is gone with the new licensing process.”

“The rush to build new nuclear power plants is simply an attempt to take advantage of federal subsidies while they are available, and then hope to pass the building and operating costs on to the public,”” noted Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office. “Luminant has said that costs could go as high as $22 billion and the Comanche Peak reactors could cost even more due to its design and the rising costs of uranium, steel and cement. Comanche Peak Unit One ran ten times over budget and was years late coming online.”

The cost of solar concentrated power plants and solar panels are coming down and wind energy is booming. Energy efficiency now returns twice the amount invested according to the Public Utility Commission of Texas. “Investing in nuclear power means increased risks of accidents, terrorist attacks and dealing with radioactive waste for millions of years. With clean affordable options, why even consider risky nuclear power?” asked Hadden.

A report by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) found that Dallas/Ft.Worth can reduce projected energy needs by 101% in the next 15 years. Peak demand can be reduced by 38% in the area. Expensive nuclear plants are not needed. www.cleanenergyfortexas.org/dallas_ftworth.html

“Renewable energy production was up about 5% between 2007 and 2008, while nuclear power production decreased,” noted Jim Duncan, President of North Texas Renewable Energy, Inc. “With the success of wind power and progress in solar technology, why would Luminant even consider sinking money into an obsolete nuclear technology?”

With the most recent ERCOT projections reporting that Texas’ existing generating capacity will meet its reserve margin needs until at least 2013, the Sierra Club’s Reed agreed that it makes better sense to invest in energy efficiency, demand response and emerging renewable technologies like wind, solar, geothermal and ways to store energy.

“There are a wide range of interest groups from industrial customers, to new players in the solar and wind energy markets, to low-income advocates who believe we need to look forward to reducing our demand and investing in new technologies like solar and energy storage, not using 20th century technology like coal-fired and uranium-fired power plants. Luminant should get on board,” said Reed.

The Seed Coalition, Public Citizen and Sierra Club are sponsors of the website NukeFreeTexas.org, which has additional information on the dangers of nuclear power in Texas.

The NRC Environmental Scoping meeting will occur at the Glen Rose Expo Center, 202 Bo Gibbs Boulevard, Glen Rose TX and will have two sessions, one from 1-4 pm and one from 7-9 pm. Hour long NRC presentations will precede each meeting.

###