Pueblo County rejects nuclear plant proposal (Colorado)

[jpak]

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_17927550

The plan to build a nuclear power plant on the outskirts of this industrial city was rejected Monday by Pueblo County commissioners due to "a significant lack of material information."

The proposal by prominent local lawyer Don Banner would have taken 24,000 acres southeast of Pueblo and turned it into a planned-unit-development area for a "clean energy park." The centerpiece of the proposal would have been a $5 billion nuclear power plant.

The 3-0 vote brought cheers and applause from a crowd of about 100 people attending the special commission meeting.

"This decision should send a message to nuclear speculators everywhere," said Ross Vincent, chairman of the Sierra Club's Sangre de Cristo Group.

<more>

[Kolesar]

1. demands the plant would make on the region's limited water supply was the main reason for opposing

Commissioner Anthony Nuñez expressed concern about nuclear waste building up at the site because the federal government has yet to come up with a long-term storage plan.

[BrightKnight]

2. Yay, more dirty coal! The bark beetles rejoice. - n/t

[diane in sf]

18. Anyone who says coal is THE alternative to nuclear power is a nuclear shill.

[Nihil]

19. Anyone who says that fossil fuels don't pick up the slack for a closed nuclear plant is delusional.

No, coal is not "THE alternative to nuclear power"
but it is undeniably AN alternative to nuclear power
and one that power companies delight in using, simply
from the profit margins due to the lack of anything
approaching a carbon tax.

Natural gas is the source that has to cover for the
most of the unpredictable fluctuations in wind & solar
(depending on how much pumped hydro is available).

Yes, the situation WILL improve when more wind & solar
is deployed where the grid is capable of utilising it
but here & now, the slack is taken up by natural gas.

You don't have to like it but (at present) you can't avoid it.

:shrug:

[diane in sf]

23. Thank you for your correction to "an" instead of "the" wind and solar are growing

rapidly, efficiency is immediate. California took its use of electrical power down about 10% in a few months just by conserving after we were attacked by friends of bush/enron dicking with our power plants and rate jacking us.

[kristopher]

3. "The centerpiece ...would have been a $5 billion nuclear power plant"

They were only going to build half a plant?

"Banner sought rezoning, planned-unit designation and a guarantee that those land-use changes could not be rescinded. The plan, however, lacked any detail on what kind of plant would be built, who would build it or where resources such as cooling water would come from."

Another article on this said that lack of any substantial information was the main reason it was rejected. First get a commitment then negotiate the price - now that's a recipe for a good use of public funds...

[txlibdem]

4. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Pueblo have a ton of wind and solar?

With a combination of both solar and wind and some pumped hydro storage they may not need any nuclear or coal. Couple that with efficiency rebates (to insulate or install geothermal heating/cooling) and they should be able to cut their energy needs enough so that their solar and wind resources could meet their needs.

Edit to add:

Colorado Solar Map:


Colorado Wind Map:

[kristopher]

5. We don't need more coal or nuclear anywhere.

http://greenmonk.net/smart-grid-heavy-hitters-jon-wellinghoff-chair-of-us-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-part-1/

http://greenmonk.net/smart-grid-heavy-hitters-jon-wellinghoff-chair-of-us-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-part-2/

That's the position of FERC Chairman Wellinghoff anyway. It's towards the end of part 2 of the interview.

[txlibdem]

6. We only disagree on which needs to be phased out first

I prefer an energy mix of 30% nuclear to 70% solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and wave power with proper amounts of storage to provide stable 24/7/365 energy output.

You prefer to shut down all the nuclear plants and double up on coal and natural gas and then have zero storage for the renewable energy sources, keeping it as an "also ran" energy source.

Personally, I think my position is the more rational.

[kristopher]

8. Personally I'm getting sick and tired of you falsly stating my position and your own.

posted by Kristopher
We don't need more coal or nuclear anywhere.
http://greenmonk.net/smart-grid-heavy-hitters-jon-wellinghoff-chair-of-us-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-part-1/
http://greenmonk.net/smart-grid-heavy-hitters-jon-wellinghoff-chair-of-us-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-part-2/
That's the position of FERC Chairman Wellinghoff anyway. It's towards the end of part 2 of the interview.

Posted by txlibdem
We only disagree on which needs to be phased out first
I prefer an energy mix of 30% nuclear to 70% solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and wave power with proper amounts of storage to provide stable 24/7/365 energy output.

You prefer to shut down all the nuclear plants and double up on coal and natural gas and then have zero storage for the renewable energy sources, keeping it as an "also ran" energy source.

Personally, I think my position is the more rational.

Since we currently have a mix of 20% nuclear the disagreement has nothing to do with "which needs to be phased out first". What both Wellinghoff and I are suggesting is that we are wasting money and time by diverting our resources to large scale centralized generation. It is exactly the opposite of your position that we need to INCREASE nuclear capacity by 50%.

Since both wellinghoff and I are completely clear that we endorse NO new Coal and NO new Nuclear your claim that I prefer to "double up on coal and natural gas" makes you either completely incapable of the most basic reasoning or completely incapable of even the most basic honesty; most likely both. We keep building renewables and upgrading the grid - that is the plan. That focus will result in a fairly predictable sequencing of the phase out of both fossils and nuclear.
Either way your effort is clearly one where you are trying to green-wash a polluting technology on behalf of corporate messaging.
To divert funding as you suggest - to support centralized generation - has a serious and negative impact on the speed with which we respond to climate change - let me repeat that, your suggestion has a NEGATIVE IMPACT on how fast we move away from fossil fuels of all kinds. It is pretty hard to reconcile that negative impact with your stated priority of 'the elimination of fossil fuels'.

We need neither nuclear nor coal nor massive amounts of storage - we need to devote all of our resources to deploying renewable energy and upgrading the grid.

Don't believe me? Then listen to the Wellinghoff interview on the video.




Now, where have I heard that messaging strategy of yours before...

Messaging strategy for nuclear power (in their own words)

From the presentation "Understanding Public Opinion: A Key to the Nuclear Renaissance" by Dr. Raul A. Deju in Sept. 2009 at conference on growing the nuclear industry. He is the Chief Operating Officer, EnergySolutions, Inc. which according to Wiki is

... one of the world’s largest processors of low level waste (LLW), and is the largest nuclear waste company in the United States...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnergySolutions

This part of the presentation comes on the tail end of a dismal assessment of public support for nuclear power and it is a given that by "sensible energy policy" the author is referring to only one that includes nuclear power that will produce the waste his company can profit from. Notice how science is rejected in favor of a strong, unified messaging campaign targeting the public.

...how do we use the results of public opinion to develop a sensible energy policy
• Leadership and unity of message need to be the top priority.
• Acceptable messages need to cover the diversity of group thinking.
• Developing confidence on having a solution to nuclear waste issues and non-proliferation requires leadership messages and social support more than scientific support.

And what are those "acceptable messages"?

Energy Messages
• Nuclear and renewable energy need to be tied into a combined offering.
• Concerns regarding energy security and energy independence can only be solved through the combination of energy efficiency, renewable standards, and nuclear energy.

That bears repeating. The leaders in the nuclear industry very clearly state that better science and solutions to the known problems associated with nuclear power are not the key to developing their industry; but rather, what is needed is a strong unified messaging campaign where nuclear and renewable energy are "tied into a combined offering" with the message that public concerns "regarding energy security and energy independence can only be solved through the combination of energy efficiency, renewable standards, and nuclear energy".

In fact, if we build nuclear power it *actively* discourages BOTH renewable energy policies and development AND energy efficiency policies and efforts because they undermine of the economics of nuclear power.

It is a real clear economic choice folks - if you advocate for nuclear power you are undercutting the efforts to build our renewables, if you support renewable energy and energy efficiency, you are denying nuclear power the market share they MUST have to be viable.

[txlibdem]

13. "blah, blah, blah... we don't need storage -- therefore natural gas plants will be needed"

Intermittent renewable energy sources need 3x to 5x their nameplate capacity and enough storage to make them a stable 24/7/365 energy source. Anything less will require natural gas plants for on demand load following -- the most expensive and least efficient use of those power plants.

In your language, explaining the consequences of your energy vision is "falsely stating your position." In English, it's called stating the truth that someone is not even trying hard to conceal.

I have posted a number of times that concentrating solar power is price competitive with coal already - in the desert southwest where there are very few cloudy days and there are more peak sun hours per day. So let's put solar where it makes sense and use the proper amount of storage so renewable energy is a stable base power source and not an intermittent source that the grid has to scramble to accommodate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
“We are already in this phase change and are very close to grid parity,” Shawn Qu, chief executive officer of Canadian Solar Inc. (CSIQ), said in an interview. “In many markets, solar is already competitive with peak electricity prices, such as in California and Japan.”

Chinese companies such as JA Solar Holdings Ltd., Canadian Solar and Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. are making panels cheaper, fueled by better cell technology and more streamlined manufacturing processes. That’s making solar economical in more places and will put it in competition with coal, without subsidies, in the coming years, New Energy Finance said.

“The most powerful driver in our industry is the relentless reduction of cost,” Michael Liebreich, chief executive officer of New Energy Finance, said at the company’s annual conference in New York yesterday. “In a decade the cost of solar projects is going to halve again.”

http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/06/april-6-news-solar-costs-may-already-rival-coal-the-surprisingly-long-history-of-green-energy/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

and:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
As the price of electricity continues to rise, and solar costs continue to fall, the moment where solar will cost the same as other forms of electric generation is fast approaching. However, analysts disagree on when that day will come.

Piper Jaffray & Co. Analyst Principal and Senior Research Analyst Ahmar Zaman recently told The Wall Street Transit that solar will reach grid parity—the point when solar will cost the same as fossil fuel—in most markets by 2015.

“I think that’s relatively optimistic compared to our analysis,” said Matt Feinstein, an analyst with Lux Research, Inc. “We see closer to 2020.”

Feinstein agreed with Zaman that some markets, like Hawaii and California, are likely to reach grid parity as early as 2015—particularly California. “

A market like Hawaii is already at grid parity. Countries in Europe, we see closer to 2020. Asia after 2020,” said Feinstein.

http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-news/when-will-solar-be-at-grid-parity-031911/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hawaii is already at grid parity. California will be by 2015, Europe by 2020 and Asia after 2020.

Your fossil fuel loving days are nearly over. And coal, oil and natural gas haven't even been hit with the bill for their deadly toxic pollution that the rest of us are graciously paying for them in increased medical bills, hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks, and thousands of heart attacks each and every year. One of these days, your favorites -the fossil fuels- will have to start paying for all the costs of their use, then there will be no question about which energy source is cheaper (it won't be fossil fuels).

[BrightKnight]

12. The green energy fairy is going to solve everything. - n/t

[Nederland]

7. If only the Sierra Club put as much effort into stopping coal plants

...then I might view them as reasonable people that I happen to disagree with. As it is though, I can only conclude that their opposition to nuclear power is irrational.

[kristopher]

9. Says our resident global warming denier.

i don't care that you call yourself a skeptic; that is just a euphemism for denier used to try and escape the gravity of the lunatic fringe you are in orbit around.

http://shimkus.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&parentid=6§iontree=6,25&itemid=403

[Nederland]

10. There are lots of reasons to oppose coal...

...and not all of them involve global warming. If you were a real environmentalist you'd know that.

[kristopher]

11. There are no reasons for anyone to endorse nuclear.

If you were sincere you'd know thqt.

[Nederland]

15. There you go again Kristopher

Making people that disagree with you out to be morally deficient. It is not enough for you to say that you and I have a difference of opinion is it? You have to make it a moral issue by accusing me of lying and being insincere. You have to make me out to be evil.

[kristopher]

22. Those are your word choices based on a reflected view of your actions

It is entirely possible to be a sincere supporter of nuclear energy. However, you cannot be a supporter of nuclear power IF you are both fully informed of the alternatives AND starting with altruistic values.

You can be uninformed, prioritize altruistic values and sincerely support nuclear power.

You can be informed, not prioritize altruistic values and sincerely support nuclear power - for example for reasons of energy security based on traditional values.

You cannot be informed, prioritize altruistic values and sincerely support nuclear power.

If you claim to be the latter, you are not sincere.

[Nederland]

24. I understand that is your belief

However, you cannot be a supporter of nuclear power IF you are both fully informed of the alternatives AND starting with altruistic values.

I understand that you believe this statement to be true. What you fail to realize is that you actually might be wrong.

[Kolesar]

14. Sierra Club stopped the American Municipal Power 1000MW Ohio power plant while you were sitting

...on your chunk in front of your PC screen

[Nederland]

16. That's great

But I never claimed that the Sierra Club put no effort into closing coal plants. I merely pointed out that they spend much much more effort protesting against nuclear than they do coal, especially if you take into account that far far more coal is being installed than nuclear.

[bananas]

20. No, the Sierra Club spends much more effort against coal than nuclear

[Nederland]

21. And you evidence for this is? (nt)

[Systematic Chaos]

17. Oil, coal and lots more shark jumping.

Hooray.

Learn to swim!

:eyes: