Nuclear Nightmare

Published on Saturday, March 19, 2011

by Ralph Nader from Commondreams.org

The unfolding multiple nuclear reactor catastrophe in Japan is prompting overdue attention to the 104 nuclear plants in the United States—many of them aging, many of them near earthquake faults, some on the west coast exposed to potential tsunamis.

Nuclear power plants boil water to produce steam to turn turbines that generate electricity. Nuclear power’s overly complex fuel cycle begins with uranium mines and ends with deadly radioactive wastes for which there still are no permanent storage facilities to contain them for tens of thousands of years.

Atomic power plants generate 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. Over forty years ago, the industry’s promoter and regulator, the Atomic Energy Commission estimated that a full nuclear meltdown could contaminate an area “the size of Pennsylvania” and cause massive casualties. You, the taxpayers, have heavily subsidized nuclear power research, development, and promotion from day one with tens of billions of dollars.

Because of many costs, perils, close calls at various reactors, and the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979, there has not been a nuclear power plant built in the United States since 1974.

Now the industry is coming back “on your back” claiming it will help reduce global warming from fossil fuel emitted greenhouse gases.

Pushed aggressively by President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu, who refuses to meet with longtime nuclear industry critics, here is what “on your back” means:

1. Wall Street will not finance new nuclear plants without a 100% taxpayer loan guarantee. Too risky. That’s a lot of guarantee given that new nukes cost $12 billion each, assuming no mishaps. Obama and the Congress are OK with that arrangement.

2. Nuclear power is uninsurable in the private insurance market—too risky. Under the Price-Anderson Act, taxpayers pay the greatest cost of a meltdown’s devastation.

3. Nuclear power plants and transports of radioactive wastes are a national security nightmare for the Department of Homeland Security. Imagine the target that thousands of vulnerable spent fuel rods present for sabotage.

4. Guess who pays for whatever final waste repositories are licensed? You the taxpayer and your descendants as far as your gene line persists. Huge decommissioning costs, at the end of a nuclear plant’s existence come from the ratepayers’ pockets.

5. Nuclear plant disasters present impossible evacuation burdens for those living anywhere near a plant, especially if time is short.

Imagine evacuating the long-troubled Indian Point plants 26 miles north of New York City. Workers in that region have a hard enough time evacuating their places of employment during 5 pm rush hour. That’s one reason Secretary of State Clinton (in her time as Senator of New York) and Governor Andrew Cuomo called for the shutdown of Indian Point.

6. Nuclear power is both uneconomical and unnecessary. It can’t compete against energy conservation, including cogeneration, windpower and ever more efficient, quicker, safer, renewable forms of providing electricity. Amory Lovins argues this point convincingly (see RMI.org). Physicist Lovins asserts that nuclear power “will reduce and retard climate protection.” His reasoning: shifting the tens of billions invested in nuclear power to efficiency and renewables reduce far more carbon per dollar (http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whynewnukesareriskyfcts.pdf). The country should move deliberately to shutdown nuclear plants, starting with the aging and seismically threatened reactors. Peter Bradford, a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) commissioner has also made a compelling case against nuclear power on economic and safety grounds (http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whynewnukesareriskyfcts.pdf).

There is far more for ratepayers, taxpayers and families near nuclear plants to find out. Here’s how you can start:

1. Demand public hearings in your communities where there is a nuke, sponsored either by your member of Congress or the NRC, to put the facts, risks and evacuation plans on the table. Insist that the critics as well as the proponents testify and cross-examine each other in front of you and the media.

2. If you call yourself conservative, ask why nuclear power requires such huge amounts of your tax dollars and guarantees and can’t buy adequate private insurance. If you have a small business that can’t buy insurance because what you do is too risky, you don’t stay in business.

3. If you are an environmentalist, ask why nuclear power isn’t required to meet a cost-efficient market test against investments in energy conservation and renewables.

4. If you understand traffic congestion, ask for an actual real life evacuation drill for those living and working 10 miles around the plant (some scientists think it should be at least 25 miles) and watch the hemming and hawing from proponents of nuclear power.

The people in northern Japan may lose their land, homes, relatives, and friends as a result of a dangerous technology designed simply to boil water. There are better ways to generate steam.

Like the troubled Japanese nuclear plants, the Indian Point plants and the four plants at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon in southern California rest near earthquake faults. The seismologists concur that there is a 94% chance of a big earthquake in California within the next thirty years. Obama, Chu and the powerful nuke industry must not be allowed to force the American people to play Russian Roulette!

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book - and first novel - is, Only The Super-Rich Can Save Us. His most recent work of non-fiction is The Seventeen Traditions.

$1.75 Billion

Buildup utilities cost: $1.75B
By Brett Kelman
Pacific Daily News
March 24, 2010

It could cost as much as $1.75 billion to prepare Guam's utilities for the military buildup and the growth beyond, and the federal government must pay for the costs that local residents cannot afford, the island's highest utility official said yesterday.

Simon Sanchez, chairman of the Consolidated Commission on Utilities, explained this price tag during a closed-door briefing with President Obama's chief environmental adviser yesterday.

Sanchez said the island needs a commitment that the federal government is willing to pay to make Obama's "One Guam, Green Guam" vision a reality -- or delay the buildup.

"What we shared with the feds this morning was: Inside this $1.5 billion to $2 billion, we are going to find a number that is the most the people of Guam can afford to pay," Sanchez said.

That number is enough for only some of the upgrades Guam's power, water and wastewater systems need to prepare, Sanchez said. The buildup is expected to bring 80,000 more people to the island by 2014.

"If the federal government wants more than that to occur, they have to fill in the gap," Sanchez said.

Some of the sharpest expert criticism of the coming military buildup came from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in February. Like Sanchez, the U.S. EPA said the buildup's impact on drinking water and wastewater could threaten the island's aquifer and public health.

If these concerns aren't addressed, U.S. EPA will call on the White House Council on Environmental Quality, which acts as a referee when federal agencies disagree.
The council's chairwoman is Nancy Sutley -- whom Sanchez briefed yesterday morning.

Journalists weren't allowed to attend the briefing, which was held at the Naval Base admiral's office. Sanchez and Sutley spoke about their meeting during a tour of Guam's northern wastewater treatment plant yesterday afternoon.

Sutley said it was obvious that the island had many long-standing infrastructure needs and the buildup would add to those shortcomings. The puzzle of who pays for the solutions must be solved, she said.

"I know there are lots of discussions going on on costs and it is important information for us and this (is) clearly an issue we are going to have to resolve, about who pays and how," Sutley said. "... We have a lot to think about and a lot of work to do still."

Direct and indirect

Regardless of whether the buildup happens, many of these improvements would be unavoidable as Guam grows, Sanchez said. But the sudden spike in population in 2014 has forced some changes to happen sooner.

Some of these changes are direct impacts -- such as the increased power, water and sewage needs of the new Marine base -- for which the military has been more than willing to help pay, Sanchez said. One example is that the military has discussed paying as much as $50 million to make upgrades at the northern wastewater treatment plant that was toured yesterday, he said.

But indirect impacts are more difficult to plan for and pay for, so Guam needs even more money from the Department of Defense for these, Sanchez said.

For example: The Guam Power Authority had planned to build a new power plant in 2022, but because the buildup will increase power needs sooner, the plant is now needed in 2017, Sanchez said.

"So why should Ms. Cruz pay for debt service on the cost of another generator five years sooner than she would if (the Marines) didn't show up?" Sanchez said.
Closed doors

Sutley's two-day fact-finding trip ended yesterday, and much of her research about Guam has taken place behind closed doors.

Only hand-picked community groups were allowed in a stakeholders meeting on Monday afternoon, and journalists weren't allowed in the briefing held yesterday morning. Yesterday afternoon, Sutley met with local senators behind closed doors.

Sutley said the meetings were designed to create "frank and candid" conversations and she didn't know if journalists would get in the way of that.

Dave Lotz, president of the Guam Boonie Stompers, said he was insulted that the White House met with "cherry-picked" stakeholders on Monday.

The Boonie Stompers have worked to retain access to local hiking trails when the military expands it borders during the buildup. This group -- and anyone else who was interested -- should have been allowed in that stakeholders meeting with Sutley, Lotz said.

"Somebody was making a judgment that they thought these were the important groups," Lotz said. "The bigger picture, obviously, ... is why are these stakeholders meetings meant to exclude true community involvement?"

PNC :: GEDA: Buildup Comes With Some Big Negatives

PNC :: GEDA: Buildup Comes With Some Big Negatives

Friday, 29 January 2010

Guam - GEDA Administrator Tony Blaz has submitted his top concerns over the impact of the military buildup to Senator Frank Aguon Jr.'s Committee on Economic Development.

In his letter to Aguon, Blaz lists the following impacts and concerns:

*GRT, corporate income taxes and personal income taxes could be as high as $423 in 2014 and then declining to $104 million in 2017.

*There may be a time lag between when GovGuam revenues are needed and when they are available for use.

*The buildup would generate more demands on Guam for roads, ports sewer, water, power and other infrastructure and will increase the pressure for substantial borrowing.

Read GEDA's list of concerns and impacts

*Members of the military do not spend a great deal of their income in the local economy, especially if they are housed on base and buy their groceries on base. Currently only 12% of the enlisted military income is spent on Guam.

*The average annual income of military personnel is just $29-thousand dollars. 11,182 active duty personnel translates into a total annual payroll of #323 million. Just 12% will be spent in the local economy.

*Housing for the military will be provided by the military, not the Guam private market. Local shippers and wholesaler will increase sales to the military bases but when imported goods are sold on base, most of the value of those sales won't be realized and profits won't be reinvested locally.

*There will be a "recession-like" period after 2014 when business will have to lay off workers after the peak buildup period.

*Guam workers will likely see the cot of living continue to rise faster than their incomes.

*The cost of living during the construction phase could negatively affect households on fixed incomes, although other households could benefit from rising wages.

*Hotels could benefit conssiderably, but the service sector could undergo a difficult period due to loss of labor to higher paying jobs and pressure or increased wages.

Written by : Kevin Kerrigan

Power upgrades raise toxic waste concerns

Power upgrades raise toxic waste concerns

Thursday, 03 December 2009 04:12
by Jude Lizama | Variety News Staff

THE draft environmental impact statement raises concerns about hazardous materials and waste with regard to three possible Guam Power Authority power grid upgrade alternatives that must be achieved in order to absorb future electrical demands as a result of the U.S. military buildup.

The preferred system upgrade alternative, which would require the reconditioning of existing permitted facilities such as the Marbo, Yigo, Dededo No. 1, and Macheche combustion turbine units, which, according to the impact study, are not currently being used up to permit limits. Transmission and distribution upgrades would be made to existing above ground and underground transmission lines.

According to the impact study, the proposed system upgrade initiatives would result in the use of “slightly more hazardous materials,” such as petroleum, oils, and lubricants; and fuels for heavy equipment, vehicles, generators, and related activities.

Additionally, the use of such fuels that may post environmental concerns will be used for repair, replacement, or renovation activities related to the system upgrade initiatives.

The study estimates around 1,500 lbs of hazardous materials that would be generated annually as a result of the proposed reconditioning, upgrade and operational activities.

Cited effects of system upgrades include increases in hazardous materials storage, use, handling, generation, and disposal; increase in fueling operations; possible use of contaminated site footprints for reconditioning projects; and potential increases for site runoff.

Potential increased site runoff

The study also cited impacts to include spills during construction activities; increased risks to human health and the environment to include terrestrial and ecosystems; and “Violations of applicable federal, state, local, or DoD laws and regulations during construction and demolition operations.”

Guam Power Bills to Drop

Power bills to drop: Fuel surcharge rollback will take effect Dec. 1
By Bryan C. Sualog
Pacific Daily News
November 11, 2008

Guam Power Authority customers can look forward to lower power bills for at least the next few months.

The Public Utilities Commission unanimously voted to approve the Guam Power Authority's request to lower the Levelized Energy Adjustment Clause, or fuel surcharge, at a special meeting yesterday.

The surcharge, which makes up about two-thirds of power bills, was lowered from 18.775 cents per kilowatt-hour to 17.105 cents per kilowatt-hour.

The lower surcharge represents a 6.95-percent decrease in the total bill for an average customer.

"We're very pleased that they concurred with our recommendation," said Guam Power Authority General Manager Joaquin C. Flores.

The change effectively rolls back Guam's last increase. On Oct. 3, the fuel surcharge was increased from 17.044 cents per kilowatt-hour to 18.775 cents per kilowatt-hour.

The reduction will go into effect Dec. 1.

"Meters read after the first of December will enjoy the new rate," Flores said. "If you're consuming power and you're on or about the beginning of the month, when you get billed for December, then your consumption would be affected by this new rate decrease."

Flores said any break in prices would be helpful to ratepayers.

"It's about $16 to $17 for the average user," Flores said of the reduction.

Barrigada resident John Rosario said even though his power bill wasn't too bad, he was looking forward to a lower bill.

"Nowadays, every little thing to save money would be a big help," he said.

Rosario said he recently found out he needed to go to the Philippines for medical treatment., The money he will save from the fuel surcharge reduction would go toward his trip, he said.

Prior to the surcharge reduction, Rosario said he and his family implemented power-saving measures to save money, such as only turning on the air conditioner before they go to sleep and running the water heater for only one hour, at night.

"It's become a way of life now. It's easier for us," he said.

Rosario said he plans on continuing with the energy conservation practices to save even more money.

While some residents are excited and looking forward to the drop in their power bills, other residents aren't so optimistic.

Jaelene San Nicolas of Mangilao said she wasn't expecting much from the reduction because she expects the fuel surcharge will just go up again.

"I don't think it will help me. That's my point of view," she said.

Emergency filing
Normally, the LEAC is adjusted every six months, but in October, GPA received informal approval from the Consolidated Commission on Utilities to begin a petition to lower power rates because of the rapidly falling price of fuel.

Any changes in oil pricing that are $2 million over or under the cost of fuel recovery allows the power agency to approach the PUC on an emergency basis.

Flores said a filing would have to be submitted Dec. 15 for the next LEAC adjustment in February. He said the next adjustment would "depend on how prices behave and whether they stay below $75 a barrel."

Flores said if crude oil stays below $75 a barrel, ratepayers will be able to enjoy the decrease through February.

"I think we made it very clear that it would be a reduction, subject to oil prices staying where they're at."

GPA Spokesman Art Perez said GPA's Web site will be updated to reflect the reduction in the fuel surcharge. The Web site is:

www.guampowerauthority.com

"They can log on, see what that change is going to be and make that adjustment," he said. "That will be a welcome relief for everybody as we continue to monitor this."

The site's calculator should be updated by the end of the week, Perez said.

GPA plans for Wind Power

GPA plan puts wind power on island grid
By Carlos B. Pangelinan
Pacific Sunday News
cbpangelinan@guampdn.com
3/1/08

Can Guam harness the power of the wind to generate electricity? Not only do officials at the Guam Power Authority seem to think so, plans already are under way to construct monitoring stations.

The stations, according to GPA officials, are needed to determine the feasibility of a wind farm that could generate as much electricity as one of Cabras' baseload generators.

John Cruz, GPA manager of special projects and research and development, said the idea stems from studies by the agency and its consultant, RW Beck, as well as from recent Integrated Resources Plan stakeholder meetings.

The IRP is a resource plan with consideration given to local power demands, trends in energy costs, energy source availability and environmental policies, Cruz said. He said at least three existing generators -- including Tanguisson 1 and 2 and Cabras 1 -- are expected to retire within the next 10 years.
Retrofitting plants to run on natural gas and the installation of wind turbines are among the utility's long-term alternative energy plans, which have become more critical with the rising cost of oil. For most ratepayers, the fuel-recovery surcharge takes up more than half of their power bills.

Cruz said the use of wind turbines is looked at as a way to reduce the cost of producing power. And while the rising cost of oil, which powers all of Guam's power plants, is an obvious reason, Cruz said trends in environmental policy both in the United States and abroad give reason to seriously consider wind.

For every 10 to 13 cents in production cost for a kilowatt hour, findings suggest it may be possible for the agency to save about 1 to 2 cents by using wind turbines, Cruz said.

When you consider the scale of GPA's operations -- a capacity of about 550 megawatts, according to the utility's Web site -- this is substantial. One megawatt-hour equals 1,000 kilowatt-hours.

Looking into the future, policy trends are a factor in providing GPA an incentive to use wind -- a renewable source of energy.

And while it has not already happened, Cruz said it is likely Congress will eventually pass some type of "carbon tax" that would discourage the use of greenhouse-gas-emitting energy sources. He added that states throughout the country have passed laws targeting specific amounts of emissions to reduce by a certain number of years.

"We are in the process right now of getting a list of places that would be the best places to put up monitoring stations," Cruz said.

He said RW Beck is researching potential sites for the stations and once the sites are determined and GPA bids out the work to construct them, the utility will begin a yearlong monitoring program to obtain wind data. The data will determine the best design for a wind turbine farm.

"By 2011, hopefully we can have (the wind turbines) installed," Cruz said.

Cruz said the plan is currently to set up a 40-megawatt wind farm.

According to Pacific Daily News files, this is the same amount produced by each of Cabras baseload generators 3 and 4. According to Cruz, GPA will need at least 20 wind turbines, and they don't necessarily have to be in a single location.

"GPA's capital cost estimate for 40 megawatts is $97,075,000," he said. Based on preliminary information provided by GPA, the cost of each turbine would be about $4.8 million each.

Bruce Best, who does research for the University of Guam on alternative energy sources, said it's possible to generate 40 megawatts through windmills on Guam, however there is a caveat.

In addition to the considerable amount of land needed for the windmills, there will be times when the turbines will not generate power because the wind will not be consistent, he said.

Cruz said another model GPA has looked at will begin to generate electricity at winds of 6.7 miles per hour, but the rate at which the turbine will produce at a "maximum steady state" would be at about 25 mph.

This means the model will produce the same amount of electricity beyond 25 mph, and will shut down when it reaches 56 mph to avoid breaking.

Local environmentalist Paul Tobiason applauded GPA's plans, but adds that conservation needs to take place and more needs to be done to make government agencies accountable for the electricity they use.

"Conservation should be (viewed) as a form of alternative energy," he said, adding that more needs to be done by individuals and, particularly, government agencies to conserve electricity.

He said basic things such as water-blasting roofs and turning off lights and electronic devices when not in use are simple conservation methods.

He also said the government of Guam needs to be up front with ratepayers on how much electricity it consumes, and taxpayers should be able to go on agency Web sites and be able to read how much energy is being consumed at GovGuam agencies and offices -- and paid for by taxpayers.