The Tallahassee Democrat today writes "Going green in Florida will mean new nuclear plants": what is striking is how confused the environmental messages are, from organizations quoted by the newspaper article (reprinted below).
Companies with plans to impose on ratepayers tens of billions in hard costs, like FPL, are very clear about their key talking point: it is all about providing volume production of electricity for an ever-expanding population.
Environmentalists are "concerned" about nuclear safety, waste, etc. but if the news report is any indication, they can't get their act together about a clear message on nuclear.
Nuclear power is the last resort after every conservation option has been exhausted, wringing every last watt of productivity from the supply and consumption chain: we are nowhere close to that, in Florida and the utilities know it.
It is my view that expansion of electric utility capacity should be on hold in Florida until new and meaningful conservation measures are in place that reward utilities and consumers.
Otherwise, what will compel the utilities from just piling on capacity and using conservation and sustainable energy alternatives as a fig leaf? And if environmental organizations aren't clear on their message, it gives an opening wide as the Grand Canyon for politicians to do what they have always done, accommodating a failed growth model based on volume and capacity.
If a period of sharp economic retraction is not a good time to reassess investment priorities, when is?
It is apparently difficult for environmental organizations like Audubon of Florida and World Wildlife Fund to mesh their message on conservation with the economy.
The gibberish from FPL about constantly rising demand-- the focal point of the company's recent annual meeting-- can easily be countered with evidence of the collapse of housing markets in Florida, and the need to change the way we grow.
April 6, 2008
Going green in Florida will mean new nuclear plants
Environmentalists want energy conservation first
By BRUCE RITCHIE
news-press.com capital bureau
TALLAHASSEE — Florida’s energy future, as envisioned by Gov. Charlie Crist and put forward in sweeping House and Senate energy bills, means more nuclear power plants and more power lines across state conservation lands.
For environmental advocates it represents a trade-off.
The earth-friendly ends are important enough that some are willing to swallow hard and accept the means to get there.
Environmental opposition has been muted after Crist last year came out against proposed coal-fired power plants and made climate-change fixes a state priority. But some groups say Florida should do much more to conserve energy before heading into a nuclear future.
“We have a much more cautious approach (toward nuclear) than the governor does,” said Debbie Harrison, director of the Florida program for the World Wildlife Fund.
Crist signed executive orders last summer directing Florida to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Along with using solar panels to produce electricity and hybrid cars to save gasoline, Crist says nuclear energy will play a key role in reducing the emissions linked to climate change.
‘You have to have juice’
In February, Crist said that additional power-line crossings of state lands will be needed in the future — as long as it’s done “in a way that is responsible.”
“You have to have power,” Crist said then. “You have to have juice to be able to continue to turn the lights on.”
Nuclear power provides 13 percent of the state’s power, less than natural gas (37 percent) and coal (24 percent), according to the Florida Energy commission. There are five nuclear reactors at three power plant sites — Crystal River, St. Lucie and Turkey Point.
The Governor’s Action Team on Energy and Climate Change in November determined that “low-carbon” sources of energy, including nuclear, were beneficial to reducing climate change.
Created by the Legislature in 2006, the Florida Energy Commission in December recommended expanding the use of nuclear energy. The commission also said 1,109 miles of additional electric transmission lines are needed over the next five years.
‘Nuclear ... the way to go’
House and Senate versions of sweeping energy legislation would make it easier for utilities to build nuclear plants. And they streamline the process for placing transmission lines across state lands.
“The environmental community is very concerned about climate change,” Rep. Stan Mayfield, R-Vero Beach and chairman of the House Environment & Natural Resources Council. “They understand that nuclear power is the way to go. To do that you’ve got to have transmission lines.”
Representatives of Audubon of Florida, the World Wildlife Fund and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy say they are not opposing new nuclear plants. But they have concerns, including the millions of gallons of fresh water needed by the plants for cooling.
‘Not satisfied’ on safety
Harrison pointed out that the governor’s commission also recommended looking at safety issues involving the storage and transportation of nuclear waste. She sits on the governor’s panel.
“I would say we (the World Wildlife Fund) are not satisfied the nuclear industry has been able to establish that it has overcome” those concerns, she said.
Environmental groups say that conservation and energy efficiency could avoid the need for new nuclear plants — and more power lines. A study by American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy last year found that energy efficiency and conservation can save about the same amount of power as a nuclear plant could produce at about one-third the cost of nuclear power.
No ‘green light’ for nukes
Audubon and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy say there are good provisions in both the House and Senate energy bills. But the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and the Climate Group say the House should adopt the Senate bill’s requirement that at least 20 percent of new energy come from conservation and energy efficiency.
New nuclear plants in the future won’t provide cost-savings or energy that is needed now in the face of rising energy costs, said Melissa Meehan, Florida climate organizer for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.
“Environmental groups are concerned about climate change,” Meehan said. “But that does not create a green-light permit to rush into a lot of expensive nuclear power plants. We have to think very hard about those long-term decisions.”
4 comments:
Is Florida, the exception? Why didn't environmental groups go to the mat, on relicensing Turkey Point 1 and 2? What kind of message did that send to the nuclear power industry, about South Florida? Easy pickings compared to places where people care...
Groups File Petition to Halt NRC "Cut And Paste" Relicensing Tactics
NRC Failures Threaten Public Health and Safety
Ocean County, New Jersey: In response to a scathing review by a federal investigatory agency, Stop the Relicensing of Oyster Creek (STROC), a coalition of six environmental and citizen's groups, has teamed with Riverkeeper today to petition the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to halt the license renewal process for America's aging fleet of nuclear power plants until objective and independent analysis is conducted into the current licensing renewal process. Pilgrim Watch and New England Coalition, the only other groups that are currently challenging license renewals, join STROC and Riverkeeper.
This petition is in direct response to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit in September 2007 that found:
1) In over 70% of the audited plant renewals the NRC staff did not verity the authenticity of technical safety information submitted by nuclear power plant operators; and
2) NRC staff reviewers routinely "cut and pasted" whole sections of the renewal application text into their own safety reviews, rather than write their own evaluations.
3) The NRC had no procedures in place to check whether the safety reviews were done properly.
At one plant in New York State, the Inspector General found that NRC staff had copied 100% of the safety review data provided by the nuclear operator into its own application.
STROC, a coalition of six environmental and citizen groups, is battling to prevent the 20-year extension of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant, the country's oldest and with the worst safety record. Investigators from the OIG uncovered that over 70% of Oyster Creek's safety evaluation was "unsubstantiated" by NRC staff. The Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) ruled on the challenge to Oyster Creek’s license renewal on December 20. Despite one of the three-panel judges finding that Exelon has not fully met the requirements to show it complied with the minimum safety standards, the panel decided to allow the license procedure to proceed. To date, STROC is the only group in the country to have won a hearing before the ASLB.
Richard Webster of the Eastern Environmental Law Center, the attorney representing STROC stated: "The OIG report confirms that the deficiencies we found throughout the hearing process for Oyster Creek were only the tip of the iceberg. The NRC is illegally allowing licensees to write their own safety evaluations. So far, the relicensing process has been a conveyor belt to a rubber stamp, not a proper safety review."
"You would think a relicensing inspection for a nuclear power plant would be at least as thorough as the house inspection you get when you purchase a home," said STROC member Paula Gotsch. "My inspector tested equipment and systems carefully--himself. Here you have a federal agency, the NRC, content to just shuffle papers. It's truly mind boggling."
Peggi Sturmfels, also a STROC member, said the report demands Congressional review. "The NRC is an agency in need of Congressional overhaul, and if this OIG report doesn't prove that, nothing short of a nuclear meltdown will."
"I don't know how the NRC is going to wiggle its way out of this one," says Janet Tauro, of STROC. "We now have a federal investigatory agency saying that the NRC reviews are shoddy and without legitimacy. There can be no relicensings until this agency is fixed."
Across the Hudson River, Entergy Nuclear Northeast submitted its application for a 20-year license extension of the Indian Point nuclear power plant. Riverkeeper and the State of New York have petitioned to intervene in the licensing proceedings.
"For years, Riverkeeper has been gravely concerned with the NRC’s lackluster approach to regulating the nuclear industry," notes Lisa Rainwater, Riverkeeper’s Policy Director. "The infamous revolving door syndrome of the nuclear industry is the underlying cause of this grave problem. Backslapping industry and agency officials swap safety review data just as readily as they swap jobs. The time has come to put a wedge in the swinging door."
The group's petition demands that the NRC suspend all current license renewal proceedings pending completion of the following actions:
* A comprehensive, independent investigation to determine whether NRC staff are actually conducting independent technical reviews of license renewal applications or merely "cutting and pasting" whole sections of the applications into their safety reviews or approving them without independent verification.
* Complete revision of existing NRC procedures for license renewal reviews to ensure completeness, consistency, and documentation of review by NRC staff prior to license renewal;
* Establishment of a Quality Assurance program for NRC staff review of renewal applications.
* Redoing the safety reviews for pending license renewals, the reviews done so far are obviously inadequate.
"The OIG report makes it clear that the current NRC license renewal process is a failure and must be completely re-evaluated before another plant is relicensed," states Phillip Musegaas, Riverkeeper staff attorney. "The Indian Point license renewal process has just gotten underway. The 20 million people who live in the shadow of Indian Point deserve a federal agency that does more than cut and paste with their health and safety."
Riverkeeper co-petitioned with STROC's six member groups; New Jersey Environmental Federation, Nuclear Information & Resource Service, New Jersey Sierra Club, NJ Public Interest Research Group, Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, and Grandmothers, Mothers, and More (GRAMMES) for Energy Safety.
The petition can be found at: www.nirs.org.
Yep, we're the exception.
If FPL has a hearing in the middle of the day out in the middle of the Redlands, does it count? Sure, says DEP.
The utility just had a hearing on cranking more megawatts out of the existing 30 year old reactors at Turkey Point. It was in the Redlands, around 2 in the afternoon on a weekday. I heard there were about a dozen people there at the most. I couldnt go because, like most people, I work for a living.
What has the FPL done to make these aged reactors capable of being turbocharged?
What about the extra waste heat made by forcing the current nuclear reactors to produce more power?
Did they do a environmental assesment or anything?
Many questions no answers.
If you care about your health, the health of your family and future generations, and if you care about Florida's environment, oppose nukes.
No coal, no nukes, no kidding!
There is an excellent list serve:
no-new-nukes-yall@yahoogroups.com
(you'll have to ask for permission to join as it is a "closed" group.
Many of us in FL are trying to organize and re-organize opposition groups to nukes. Nuke supporters say that nukes produce no greenhouse gases - that is just not true. And - nukes still face the same old problems they always have: they use more water than we can afford and there's no plan for storing their dangerous wastes.
Plus, the need is not there - Florida is not growing; the housing market has finally started convincing people not to come to FL, which will be good for the environment. The power companies merely want more growth, more profits, more, more, more.
so -
no coal, no nukes, no kidding!
Funny if going green meant using nukes why is germany mothballing theirs? Do we have to pay for the construction of this plant, FPL should have an op-out on the bill
Post a Comment