Nuclear Industry Goes 0-6 in 2009 Efforts to Overturn State State Bans on New Nuclear Reactors

[bananas]

Press release from NIRS:

http://www.nirs.org/press/08-27-2009/1

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 27, 2009

CONTACT
Leslie Anderson, NIRS 703-276-3256
Another Major Setback for "Nuclear Renaissance": Industry Goes 0-6 in 2009 Efforts to Overturn State Bans on New Nuclear Reactors.

More Lobbying Expected in 2010 in Even Tougher Environment After Yucca Mountain and Soaring Cost Estimates; Outside of Bans, Industry Falters on CWIP in Missouri and Key Fights in Other States.

WASHINGTON, D.C.///August 27, 2009///The so-called "nuclear renaissance" is finding few friends among state lawmakers in the United States. The nuclear power industry has been shut out across the board in 2009 in its efforts in all six states — ranging across the nation from Kentucky to Minnesota to Hawaii -- where it sought to overturn what are either explicit or effectively bans on construction of new reactors, according to the nonprofit Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). Efforts to overturn bans also have failed to advance in Illinois and West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Beyond failing to reverse a single state-level ban on new reactors, the industry also suffered a wide range of major defeats, including an effort to repeal a ban on "Construction Work in Progress" (CWIP) payments that would have been imposed on Missouri ratepayers to finance a new nuclear power plant, which was then promptly mothballed. Industry efforts to get nuclear declared "renewable" by the states of Indiana and Arizona also failed to achieve results. Also going nowhere is a California bill to lift the state's pioneering law banning new reactors until a high-level waste dump is in place. That follows a 2008 California statewide referendum drive with the same focus that failed for lack of sufficient signatures to get it on the ballot.

Michael Mariotte, executive director, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said: "While the nuclear power industry and a few members of Congress claim the U.S. is on the verge of a nuclear power resurgence, the industry looks more like a critical patient struggling to get by on life support out in the real world beyond the Beltway. No one seriously expects the industry to go away. But the truth is that things will be even tougher for their state lobbyists in 2010 now that the freeze on Yucca Mountain has taken long-term waste disposal off the table and also in the wake of new evidence of runaway construction costs that make nuclear power even more of a boondoggle."

Dave Kraft, director, Nuclear Energy Information Service, Chicago, IL., said: "Authorizing construction of new nuclear reactors without first constructing a radioactive waste disposal facility is like authorizing construction of a new Sear's Tower without bathrooms. Neither makes sense; both threaten public health and safety." Jennifer Nordstrom, Carbon-Free Nuclear-Free coordinator, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Madison, WI., said: "Telling states to build new nuclear plants to combat global warming is like telling a patient to smoke to lose weight: There are too many other serious downsides that cannot be ignored. Fortunately, it is both technically and economically feasible to go both carbon-free and nuclear-free by 2050. Here in Wisconsin, we have a carbon-free, nuclear-free coalition in support of Wisconsin's current law on nuclear power, and a 100 percent renewable Wisconsin."

Commenting on the defeat of an industry-sought CWIP repeal in the Missouri Legislature this year, Mark Haim, chair, Missourians for Safe Energy, Columbia, MO., said: "New nuclear plants are far too risky and expensive to attract investor funding. Utilities will only build them if they can transfer the risk to the taxpayers or their ratepayers. Here in Missouri AmerenUE attempted to repeal a voter-enacted state law that bans Construction Work in Progress charges. Their goal was to get the ratepayers to assume the risks. When our legislators heard from consumer, senior, low-income and industrial groups all opposing CWIP, the CWIP repeal went nowhere. Once Ameren realized they couldn't get CWIP, they announced that they were abandoning efforts to build a new nuclear reactor. The pattern is clear, investors find nuclear too risky and utilities will only go down the nuclear path if their customers or the taxpayers underwrite the project."

NIRS provided this overview of the six states where industry efforts to overturn what are explicit or effective bans on new reactors failed:

MINNESOTA. The 1994 law in Minnesota provides that the state will not approve "the construction of a new nuclear-powered electric generating plant..." The Minnesota House voted 70-62 on April 30, 2009 to keep the state's nuclear moratorium in place. Rep. Frank Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis, has stated publicly that the issues that led to the 1994 law are still not resolved. "We hear about advancement in technology, but we haven't solved the issue of waste -- a million-year radioactive toxic legacy that we'll pass on to untold generations," said Hornstein.

Since then, Minnesota has seen the launch of a group calling itself "Sensible Energy Solutions for Minnesota" including a retired power company CEO and the self-proclaimed head of a wildlife group who also headed up an organization called "Sportsmen for Bush." According to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, the new organization was founded by "three veteran Republican operatives": Matt Burns, spokesman for the 2008 Republican National Convention; Ben Golnik, who last year was Midwestern manager of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign; and Tom Steward, a campaign spokesman for McCain and communications director for former Sen. Norm Coleman. By contrast, the Minnesota House's upholding of the moratorium was supported by the Clean Water Action Alliance of Minnesota, Environment Minnesota, Izaak Walton League of America—Minnesota Division, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Sierra Club North Star Chapter.

WEST VIRGINIA. In 1996, section §16-27A-2 of the West Virginia State Code was enacted, stipulating that any nuclear facility must be approved by the Public Service Commission, comply with environmental requirements, be economically feasible for in-state rate payers, and, most importantly also that "a functional and effective national facility which safely, successfully and permanently disposes of any and all radioactive wastes associated with operating any such nuclear power plant, nuclear factory or nuclear electric power generating plant has been developed and that such facility has been proven safe, functional and effective by a minimum of twenty-four months' operation or experience." This spring, a bill to repeal West Virginia's effective ban on nuclear power plants died in the 2009 Legislature.

WISCONSIN. Wisconsin law sets two conditions that must be met before new nuclear power plants can be built in the state. One is that there must be "a federally licensed facility" for high-level nuclear waste. In addition, the proposed nuclear plant "must be economically advantageous to ratepayers." As the Center for Media and Democracy noted on March 26, 2009: "Given the near-death of the planned waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, and the estimated $6 to $12 billion cost of building one nuclear reactor -- not to mention the lack of interest from private investors and the tanking economy -- Wisconsin's law effectively bans new nuclear plants in the state. The major industry group Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) registered four lobbyists in Wisconsin. NEI is lobbying state legislators on issues related to 'nuclear generation ... engineering education and other issues related to state policies on energy, job creation, and environmental law,' according to disclosure forms. It's the first time that NEI has had lobbyists in Wisconsin since at least 1996, though the group has organized public and media events here, especially in recent years."

As the Milwaukee Journal reported on April 21, 2009: "Supporters of nuclear power made a big push earlier this spring to overturn the state's ban on construction of nuclear reactors. The supporters included (Patrick Moore) a co-founder of Greenpeace who now is working for an energy coalition funded by the Nuclear Energy Institute.... coalition of environmental groups and others concerned about nuclear power responded, saying the high cost of nuclear power and the challenge of radioactive waste -- the spent fuel left over from production of electricity from reactors -- make nuclear the wrong choice for the state. 'Given nuclear power's high costs and its legacy of nuclear waste, expanding the use of nuclear power is not a responsible choice for meeting future electricity needs in Wisconsin,' Physicians for Social Responsibility and other groups said in a letter to Gov. Jim Doyle and members of the Legislature.

HAWAII. Hawaii's ban on nuclear reactors dates back to the state's 1978 Constitutional Convention, which added Article XI, Section 8 to the State Constitution: "No nuclear fission power plant shall be constructed or radioactive material disposed of in the State without the prior approval by a two-thirds vote in each house of the legislature." Industry-supported bills to lift this constitutional requirement failed in the 2009 Legislature.

ILLINOIS. Illinois' law requires either a federally-approved waste disposal strategy or the state legislature's approval for a new reactor project. According to the Nuclear Energy Information Service, the repeal attempts of the Illinois nuclear construction moratorium did not move in the 2009 legislative session in the Capitol. Bills introduced in the Illinois House and Senate died in both chambers. These restrictions may be linked to the fact that Illinois is described as "the Most Nuclear State in the USA". Illinois has 11 operating power reactors, three power reactors prematurely closed, and hearings underway for a new plant. Illinois also has a waste closed and leaking dump for "low level" radioactive waste, a storage facility for spent fuel, and Manhattan Project waste buried in a forest preserve.

KENTUCKY. Kentucky's law not only requires a high-level nuclear waste facility "in actual operation" by the time the new nuclear reactor would require it, but also insists on detailing "the cost of disposal ... with reasonable certainty." A combination of industry-backed bills designed to remove these restrictions died in the 2009 Legislature.

According to NIRS, the nuclear industry's 2009 defeats in 10 or more state capitols — including all six efforts to overturn bans on new reactors — were offset by only one win. Georgia state lawmakers approved CWIP, empowering a subsidiary of the Atlanta-based Southern Co. to collect $2 billion from its customers before a single watt of power is produced from two planned nuclear reactors. Outside of the South, CWIP bail-outs for the industry have made little headway to date. ABOUT NIRS

The year 2008 marked the 30th anniversary of the nonprofit Nuclear Information and Resource Service (http://www.nirs.org). NIRS was founded to be the national information and networking center for citizens and environmental activists concerned about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation and sustainable energy issues. NIRS does not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power."

CONTACT: Leslie Anderson, for NIRS, [phone] or [e-mail].

EDITOR'S NOTE: A streaming audio recording of the news event will be available here as of 6 p.m. EDT/3 p.m. PDT on August 27, 2009 .
-30-

[Tikki]

1. GOOD.....

OOPS only works for consenting adults...



The Tikkis...children of the radiant glow..

[NNadir]

2. Another victory for the dangerous fossil fuel industry. If the dangerous fossil fuel

industry were required to contain all of its by products on grounds, it would collapse in 30 seconds, leaving Amory Lovins without a huge source of revenue.

Of course, when the dangerous natural gas runs out - and it will - the dumb fundie anti-nukes will all be behind the gates with diesel generators, no doubt.

How come dumb fundie anti-nukes never call for dangerous fossil fuel powered plants to have a sited operational permanent (as in forever) waste site to operate?

Never mind...

It's pretty clear why that is.

The dumb fundie anti-nuke community doesn't give a fuck about dangerous fossil fuel waste, even though it actually kills people, mostly because the people who die from it are poor people.

[RC]

3. Our oil as already running out now, as we continue to ramp up consumption.

Nuclear power is the only power source on the horizon that has a prayer of mitigating the mass die off of the human race when the oil finally does run out.

[bananas]

4. Wrong.

Nuclear will only play a small role - this is the conclusion of every serious scientific analysis, including the IPCC.

[NNadir]

5. Um, kiddie, "will" only play a small role? Can't add? Can't subtract, multiply or divide?

No surprise there, Kiddie.

As I've made clear, kiddie, a thousand times here using something called, um, "numbers," nuclear energy has been, for several decades now, the world's largest source of climate change gas free primary energy.

You oppose it, and want to risk the lung tissue of every higher organism on the face of the earth based on your fantasies and inability to compare two numbers.

Let me guess kiddie, you're here once again to tell us how wonderful solar power is, engage in a little more of the endless soothsaying, and claiming that http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html">0.091 > 8.455.

The world output of nuclear energy is um, a matter of record, involving something soothsayers and other religious fundies, including anti-nuke fundies can't really grasp, data.

Once again, fundie, since Amory Lovins soothsaid in 1980 in his famous and exceedingly stupid paper in Foreign Affairs that um, "nuclear power is dead" the nuclear industry has increased its output by a factor of four, making it the world's fastest growing, by far, source of climate change gas free energy in the last 29 years.

Don't understand that http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table27.xls">growing by 389% when already an exajoule scale is not "dead?"

No surprise there.

Why don't you pull out a little of the "wisdom" of your fellow soothsayer, the Conoco Phillips/Royal Dutch Shell Greenwasher Amory Lovins.

According to this little cult priest, writing with typical "soothsaying bullshit" in 1980 in his very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very stupid "paper" in Foreign Affairs "Nuclear Power and Nuclear Bombs" in 1980:

Our thesis rests on a different perception. Our attempt to rethink focuses not on marginal reforms but on basic assumptions. In fact, the global nuclear power enterprise is rapidly disappearing.

Yeah, that was an accurate statement, wasn't it? Every dumb fundie anti-nuke can surely assert that 2,660 < 684, (link above) because these kinds of inequalities are the stable of cult thinking.

(cf. Lovins, Amory the Stupid, "Nuclear Power and Nuclear Bombs" Foreign Affairs Summer 1980, page 1138.

Continues Amory, dangerous fossil fuel corporation greenwasher, um, I mean, highly paid "consultant:"

We shall argue that the collapse of nuclear power in response to the discipline of the marketplace is to be welcomed, for nuclear power is both the main driving force behind proliferation and the least effective known way to displace oil: indeed, it retards oil displacement by the faster, cheaper and more attractive means which new developments in energy policy now make available to all countries.

And what exactly were these "faster, cheaper, and (more) effective ways?" The hydrogen HYPERcar that Amory told us in 2001 would be "in showrooms" by 2005?

Or maybe he was trying to make exorbitant claims for the wind, solar, geothermal and biomass/garbage industries combined, which managed in the last 29 years to grow to http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls">less than 2/3 of what nuclear power was in 1980, and less than 15% of what it produces now.

Heckuva job on the math fundies. Heckuva job.

The fact is kiddie, if you and your dumb anti-nuke friends had had your way, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be about http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/12/172323/645">by direct calculation 5 ppm higher than it is now.

The fact is that there is a record of the stupid prognostications of stupid anti-nukes stretching back for more than 40 years.

All of them are no less absurd than the 2000 year old claim that Jesus is going to return soon. All of them are demonstrably delusional, unless, of course, you are a member of the anti-nuke cults and can't understand numbers.

[bananas]

6. Um, kiddie, word salad? Can't add? Can't subtract, multiply or divide?

No surprise there, Kiddie!

As I've made clear, kiddie, a thousand times here using something called, um, "numbers," nuclear energy has been, for several decades now, the world's largest source of climate change gas free primary energy.

You keep saying that - even though it's wrong.
Hydro beats nuclear, both in primary and net generation.
Anyone can look up the numbers themselves, they are in these tables:
- Table 11.1 World Primary Energy Production by Source, 1970-2006 (Quadrillion Btu)
- Table 11.16 World Net Generation of Electricity by Type, 1980, 1990, and 2006 (Billion Kilowatthours)

[madokie]

7. It seems to me that you are pissed because Lovins is paid for his efforts where the best you can do

is come here and rant and rave and carry on like a mad man or go to DKOs and write your stupid lame ass ignorant screeds which make about as much sense as this post I'm replying to here does. You know, I'd be pissed too if I couldn't get anyone to pay me for my life's work.
Sorry big guy I don't think anyone will be paying you anything like money or respect anytime soon
Have a great evening anyway ok, I know I am.
Now go have another shot of whatever your drunk ass likes to imbibe

[NNadir]

8. Um, it seems to me you STILL can't understand NUMBERS. I couldn't care less

what you have to say about ME.

In fact, since you obviously can't understand NUMBERS, they sound mad to you and you get apoplectic when I produce them, having a little tirade calling me mad.

In fact, you still can't comprehend that 2660 is NOT less than 684. Nuclear power didn't die because Saint Amory of the Oil Slick announced the death of nuclear power in 1980.

The reason that numbers sound mad to you is that you have never, not once, opened a science book in your life and have obviously not opened a math book either.

There are, in fact, zero fundie anti-nukes who can comprehend numbers, including the number zero even if, in fact, the anti-science, anti-nuke cults are zeros.

If by the way, you are under the misapprehension that I want your respect, you must have made the mistake of thinking that I have demonstrated a shred of respect for EVEN ONE fundie anti-nuke, a fundie being a person whose views are not changed by any amount of information, including numbers. In fact, I think I've made it fairly clear in a thousand different ways that I have zero respect for the fundie anti-nuke position, and zero respect for the fundies themselves. I would be insulted and revolted if one member of that cult claimed to "respect" me, since that would clearly demonstrate that I am associated with the 0.091 > 2660 position.

Sorry, but I don't do hallucinations.

Seeking your approval would be very much like seeking Pat Robertson's approval. Ain't going to happen.

[madokie]

9. Actually the last thing I'd want is your respect

After all from what you have to say here and over there I can say you are one washed up old dude who can't grasp that the world is moving on without you.
Sorry but Jaysus will not be coming back and taking you away from all the nuke waste your prized industry have left us to clean up.