Yucca Mountain News Clips
Friday, August 22, 2008
---------------------------
KVBC
August 21, 2008
Reid: Road to the presidency is through the West
Linda Wieland - Sunbelt Digital Media
John and Cindy McCain are inviting supporters to join them on their road to the Republican convention, but Sen. Harry Reid says the road to the White House is through the West.
During a conference call Thursday morning, the Nevada senator along with Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) told reporters that the "new west" -- Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming -- is positioned to have a key influence on this year's election.
Reid touted the fact that Nevada now has 60,000 more Democrats than Republicans, while Republican voter registration has dropped over the past two years.
Sen. Reid also commented that while McCain may represent Arizona, he "has lost total touch with the West."
Both Reid and Salazar slammed McCain on issues that include energy and Yucca Mountain, arguing that his policies are not compatible with Western values. "McCain is a third term of George Bush. I think that's the last thing people of the West want," Salazar said.
The two Democratic senators saved all their kind words for presidential hopeful Barack Obama. They praised him for understanding what is important to Western states, and expect the excitement surrounding his campaign to draw more voters to the polls in November -- something that could help lead to victory in other Democratic races as well.
According to recent polls, McCain has edged ahead of his Democratic rival to take a small lead in both Colorado and Nevada. When asked about Obama's position, neither Reid nor Salazar seemed concerned. "Barack Obama is going to do just fine," Salazar predicts.
The Democratic National Convention kicks off in Denver on August 25.
---------------------------
Reid: Road to the presidency is through the West
Las Vegas Review-Journal
August 21, 2008
ERIN NEFF: State must do more than just talk about renewables
Why is it that the hottest air in renewable energy proposals always seems to come from a politician outside Nevada?
Even as UNLV hosted the National Clean Energy Summit this week, Nevada was still largely talking about its potential. As the Olympics prove night after night, all the talking, preparation and inherent bountiful skills only go so far if the rest of the world is already out there doing it.
Yes, Nevada is the "Saudi Arabia" of the United States. We have the resources -- sun, air, biomass. And we have public support for clean, green living.
But T. Boone Pickens wants the world's largest windfarm to be built in the Texas panhandle.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants the Big Apple to be the big windy city, trying to put the "Second" in Chicago's other nickname.
Of course, for many Las Vegans, just having everyone show up here for a big environmental symposium was a bolt of credibility. Then reality sets in. Nevada businesses bilked the state out of green-energy tax breaks by making some parts of already-planned construction adhere to national standards. The greenness inside these casinos however, with 24-7 smoking and no natural light, is still all left on the felt.
Maybe Nevada politicians will be inspired by the vision of Bloomberg or the bottom-line sense of Pickens.
The last big vision thing to come from a Nevada pol was Oscar Goodman's support of an 80,000-seat football stadium.
Over the 10 years that I've lived here, I've watched Nevadans digest a steady environmental diet of no nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain coupled with the promise and hope of good green jobs and lower energy costs. We've been told about our seemingly limitless potential -- all those days of sun and wind and geothermal features that would be the envy of the world.
But it's the lesser-ordained places that are proving potential doesn't matter as much as simply doing it.
Some Nevadans may know about the state of gaming in Atlantic City, what with so many of New Jersey's casinos owned by operators here. But few know Atlantic City has wind turbines churnin' along the coast.
Atlantic City -- our second city -- has beat us to the environmental punch.
McCarran International Airport officials bleat a lot about airline industry woes. But they could be saving a little money if they put up some wind turbines like Boston's airport has. Apparently they don't interfere with radar, after all.
Bloomberg may be a lame duck with lamer prospects of national office, but it takes a bit of courage to try to redesign the skyline of a city still arguing about what should be built at 9/11's Ground Zero.
"When it comes to producing clean power, we're determined to make New York the No. 1 city in the nation," Bloomberg said in Las Vegas.
Bloomberg's vision sees wind turbines not just off the coast of Long Island, but on top of bridges and skyscrapers, too. The New York of the future may have as many skyscraper farmers as it does hedge fund managers.
Will the Las Vegas of the future have as many photovoltaics as it does celebrity photos? Right now it's just Oscar and his dream of an annual Super Bowl.
I'm sure the stadium won't have turbines given how the wind could impact the passing on the field.
The turbines might even impact betting lines. In such a case, green energy would once again lose to the greenbacks.
The biggest exception to the "what if" scenarios in Nevada is the Nevada Solar One project just outside of Boulder City. If you're driving to Searchlight or Laughlin, you might think it's some kind of a mirage. Thankfully, that project is not too good to be true.
It's 400 acres, cost $270 million and emits zero greenhouse gases. The parent company, Acciona Solar Power, says it is the third-largest such plant in the world.
Nevada Sen. Harry Reid spearheaded this week's energy summit and thinks it is likely Las Vegas will host another forum like it next year. Maybe that's the best news Nevada can hope for on the renewable front.
By next year, we might actually see a competition to find out which properties can truly go the greenest. Maybe the energy summit will require the host hotel to do more than just ask guests to re-use towels.
And maybe there will be plans for turbines at the CityCenter project. Maybe the Luxor could replace some of its cool black glass with photovoltaics.
Hey, some tourists wouldn't mind cooking.
The Stratosphere could really kick it up to heights previously unknown. It always feels windy up there anyway. Turbines would look as natural as the people who already pay good money to hang off the thing.
The potential in Nevada, even in Las Vegas, may be limitless.
This week's symposium at UNLV might someday be credited as visionary. Let's hope by then we're not playing catch up to all those people with less wind potential but more hot air.
--Contact Erin Neff at eneff@reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2906.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
August 21, 2008
Nevada political roundup: Ad targets McCain on Yucca
By Michael Mishak
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign, with the help of Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley, unveiled its second ad on Yucca Mountain today.
Again, the ad takes as its premise that Sen. John McCain is comfortable with storing nuclear waste in Nevada -- but not with it traveling through his home state of Arizona. The ad references an interview McCain did on Northern Nevada's "Newsmakers" program last year.
As Sun columnist Jon Ralston pointed out to his e-mail subscribers:
"The Arizona senator clearly misunderstood the question and made it sound as if he would not be comfortable with waste going through his home state when I am sure he meant the opposite."
The interview is here. (The money quote comes at 1:20).
Asked about the apparent distortion, Berkley said, "That’s nonsense. I haven't seen the senator retract his comments. And if they didn’t use that statement they’d still have plenty of ammunition. We have a wonderful alternative to that Neanderthal thinking. Senator Obama says no way (to Yucca). I think that’s worth at least two commercials."
Earlier in the call she dubbed McCain "the original Yucca Mountain Johnny," referencing the Department of Energy's mascot for the project.
Asked why the campaign is focusing on an issue that Democrats and Republicans alike say isn't a deciding one (Bush, a Yucca supporter, won Nevada twice), Berkley said the effort served to illustrate the differences between Obama and McCain.
-- Berkley also took a swipe at McCain and his campaign for branding Obama an "elitist."
"When I hear the word elitist linked with Barack Obama, that is a code word for uppity," she said. "I find it extremely offensive and John McCain should know better. And until this election he handled himself in a far more enlightened way. I find it offensive. And I believe a lot of Americans do too. They’re not using 'elitist' by accident. It’s a code word for uppity black man."
Pressed by Kathleen Hennessy of the Associated Press, who noted that Bush used the same attack against John Kerry in 2004, Berkley demurred, saying, "We've got the Republican playbook and I'm banking on the intelligence of the American people to discard that playbook."
Her favorite for Obama's veep? Sen. Joe Biden.
-- A new poll by the Reno Gazette-Journal/KTVN Channel 2 released today has the presidential race tied in Nevada. Obama and McCain have essentially equal standing (favorability) among the state's voters.
Anjeanette Damon of the RGJ has some key findings on her blog:
"Of those surveyed, 51 percent had a favorable view and 44 percent had an unfavorable view of McCain, while 52 percent had a favorable and 40 percent had an unfavorable view of Obama.
"And as Washoe County Democrats have been saying for months now, Northern Nevada could tip the balance in the race, where it is a veritable tie. McCain has a 1-point lead in Washoe County. Obama is leading by 7 points in Clark County.
"The results indicate that McCain's full-on television assault over the past month has done little to erode Obama's standing. However, it's also relevant to point out Obama visited the state a day before the survey began."
-- Democrat Dina Titus, who's challenging Republican Rep. Jon Porter in Nevada's 3rd Congressional District, is featured in a Wall Street Journal piece on Democrats and offshore drilling.
--Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean visited UNLV yesterday to rally students as part of his "Register to Change" tour.
Dean noted that Democrats had identified 16,000 people who moved to Nevada within the last year but had yet to register to vote. He talked about how Obama's campaign was furthering his "50-state strategy" to make Democrats more competitive. Obama calls his approach the "neighborhood leadership program."
The R-J's Molly Ball has the details:
"It involves canvassers not merely making an impersonal stop to drop off a pamphlet, but connecting individually with 30 or 40 people and then returning to them three or four times.
-- Sen. Harry Reid talked to R-J staffers, saying he refuses to strip independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, a McCain supporter, of his Senate positions for accepting a speaking role at the Republican National Convention. Reid also talked up Biden.
-- The Washington Post says Obama's campaign will call next week for the creation of a commission to revise the presidential selection process in 2012, with the goal of reducing the power of superdelegates.
Also at issue is the nominating calendar itself. Nevada's early caucus isn't mentioned.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
August 21, 2008
Nevada lawmaker says McCain using race
The Associated Press
A Nevada congresswoman and surrogate for Barack Obama accused John McCain's campaign on Thursday of using veiled language to paint the Democratic presidential candidate as an "uppity black man."
On a conference call with reporters, U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley of Las Vegas said the Republican's attempts to portray his rival as out of touch with average Americans carried racial undertones.
"When I hear the word 'elitist' linked with Barack Obama, to me, that is a code word for 'uppity,'" Berkley said on a call organized by the Obama campaign to announce a new television ad. "I find it extremely offensive, and John McCain should know better. And until this election, he handled himself in a far more enlightened way. ... They're not using the word 'elitist' by accident, that's a code word for 'uppity black man.'"
Berkley's analysis was not echoed by Obama's campaign.
"That is not a characterization the campaign agrees with," said Obama spokeswoman Kirsten Searer. "That is our only comment."
The McCain campaign did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment.
Berkley's comments interjected the issue of race on a day the two presidential candidates, both millionaires, traded accusations of elitism.
While campaigning in Virginia, Obama pounced on the Arizona senator's admission that he did not know how many homes he owned.
McCain's campaign tried to deflect attention from the gaffe by issuing a statement noting that the Illinois senator sought advice from Chicago businessman Tony Rezko when he bought his home in Chicago for $1.65 million in 2005. Rezko has since been convicted on corruption charges.
Berkley, a popular five-term lawmaker, was asked on the conference call to discuss an unrelated new campaign commercial. The ad, called "Dangerous," is the second attacking McCain for supporting the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada.
--On the Net:
Obama campaign, "Dangerous": http://my.barackobama.com/dangerous_ad
John McCain 2008: http://www.johnmccain.com
---------------------------
PolitickerNV
August 21, 2008
Obama ad attacks McCain on Yucca
By Daniel Trudeau
The campaign of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has launched a new television ad in Nevada attacking opponent John McCain on his stance on Yucca Mountain.
The ad features shots of Nevadan voters expressing their concern about the planned nuclear waste dump and then hits U.S. Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) on his expressed support for the project.
The spot wraps up with a shot of McCain and President Bush with a voiceover saying, "McCain, more of the same."
Watch the entire spot below.
http://www.politickernv.com/danieltrudeau/2259/obama-ad-attacks-mccain-yucca
---------------------------
The Coloradoan
August 21, 2008
Nuclear talk electrifying
Mike Fox
In a recent Soapbox, Lisa Olivas castigated Gov. Bill Ritter for saying that nuclear power is going to be part of our future, correctly deducing that if there is going to be nuclear power, there will need to be mining for uranium. So, should there be nuclear power and, if so, is it safe?
Currently, the United States derives 20 percent of its electricity generation from nuclear power, while all nonhydroelectric renewable sources, including solar and wind power, provide about 2.5 percent and coal provides about 50 percent.
Furthermore, even with conservation practices, electricity use will increase due to population growth, increased use of electronics and air conditioning and the advent of electric cars. The Energy Information Administration expects a 29 percent increase in electricity generation by 2030. While all renewable sources, including hydroelectric, are expected to increase to 13 percent of the total, coal will increase to 54 percent. Coal produces enormous amounts of CO2, which contributes to global climate change. If we really care about the environment, we must reduce the dependence on coal and other fossil fuels. The only source capable of meeting the demand while reducing coal usage and CO2 production is nuclear power.
Known reserves of uranium will last for about 85 years at current usage, with much more available at higher prices, but mining of uranium is necessary. In spite of all the negative comments about the proposed in-situ leach uranium mining, it is a safe technology that is highly regulated by state and federal agencies. Radiation exposure to the public from ISL uranium mining is negligible, much less than background. Coloradans naturally are exposed to much higher levels of radiation than the average for the United States because of uranium in rocks and because of our higher altitude, yet Coloradans actually have the third lowest cancer risk among U.S. states (National Cancer Institute).
Contamination of groundwater is considered to be the major problem with ISL, but it is important to realize that the water containing the uranium is not drinkable water and never will be. The solution to be pumped in to solubilize the uranium is sodium bicarbonate (baking soda). Even so, monitoring wells are required and the whole process is highly regulated by state agencies to ensure safety. Colorado recently passed the most stringent law in the nation governing regulation of ISL uranium mining.
Nuclear power has an extremely good safety record; there have been no deaths from U.S. nuclear reactors in more than 40 years of operating experience, including Three Mile Island, and newer generations of nuclear reactors are even safer. Nuclear waste is safely stored on site, but long-term underground storage at Yucca Mountain is primarily a political, not a scientific or public health problem.
The largest environmental problem facing the world is overuse of carbon-based fuels leading to global climate change. Greater use of coal only will worsen the problems, so it is essential that other energy sources be used. All forms of energy, including renewable, will need to be used, but increasing nuclear power will be critically important. Simply demanding that there be no uranium mining will not solve any problems and in fact will create worse problems for the environment.
--Mike Fox is a professor of radiological health sciences at Colorado State University
---------------------------
Sarasota Herald-Tribune
August 21, 2008
The trouble with nuclear power
Plants are generally safe, but high costs and risks remain
These are heady times for nuclear power advocates.
The industry is on an unprecedented uptick as the world tries to lessen its reliance on globe-warming fossil fuels. In the United States, applications for new reactors and extended licenses are soaring. In Florida, which has five nuclear reactors, preliminary approval has been granted for four more.
A rising chorus of support -- from financial markets, Congress, legislatures and the campaign trail -- has dimmed long-standing memories of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, the two most serious accidents to befall the nuclear power industry.
But before anyone is tempted to put a smiley-face sticker on the next nuclear plant, consider some recent news stories:
Monday, Florida Power and Light announced the shutdown of a nuclear reactor in South Florida, after a leak developed from a "structural weld crack." It is not a safety threat, company officials said, but the duration of the shutdown is indefinite.
A report this week to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the rod control system malfunctioned at a nuclear power station near Raleigh, N.C. (Control rods regulate the rate of fission of uranium and plutonium in nuclear reactors.)
Doubts cloud the future of the unfinished national nuclear-waste storage site at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Local opposition is stiff, and costs are rising. From the beginning of the program in 1983 through the anticipated closure and decommissioning in 2133, an estimated $79 billion will be spent on Yucca Mountain, the Department of Energy reported this month. That's a 38 percent increase over 2000 estimates, taking into account an expected rise in nuclear waste that would be stored there as the nation deploys more reactors.
Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, touts France's nuclear power program as an exemplar, but several problems were reported there last month. At a nuclear plant in Tricastin, for example, untreated uranium seeped into the ground and wound up in rivers. Later, radioactive particles escaped from a pipe, slightly contaminating utility workers. The environment minister said French nuclear facilities experienced more than 80 "small irregularities" last year.
These are not deadly accidents. They don't negate the fact that, by many measures, nuclear power plants are far safer than coal-fired plants, which expose millions of people to life-shortening air pollution.
But the episodes show nuclear power problems can and do occur -- frequently.
Despite the general safety record, nuclear power presents tough security and maintenance challenges. That reality differs from the safe-and-cheap happy talk dispensed by lobbyists -- who in the past decade have pumped nearly a third of a billion dollars into U.S. campaign coffers and public relations.
U.S. at an energy crossroads
The United States is at a difficult energy crossroads. It can't rely indefinitely on oil and dirty coal as global temperatures and sea levels rise. Clean alternatives, such as solar and wind power, are promising but not yet ready to shoulder the lion's share of the nation's fuel needs.
Consequently, nuclear energy has taken on an air of inevitability as the country transitions out of fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is low in carbon emissions, and new reactor designs have the potential to greatly cut the danger of radioactive accidents or misuse.
But those design prototypes are not yet approved. No solution is in place for long-term waste storage. Regulatory oversight is complex and inadequate. Enormous start-up subsidies are required.
If the United States heads down the nuclear road, it should do so with eyes wide open to the costs and risks.
Energy conservation, by contrast, is a safe, inexpensive way to buy time for improvements in solar and wind power. Americans don't need a multimillion-dollar lobbying effort to tell them that less is more.
---------------------------
MonroeNews
August 21, 2008
Nuclear plant plan generates questions
by Charles Slat
Environmental, safety and economic themes dominated questions that citizens posed about DTE Energy's plans for a new nuclear power plant near Newport during a public meeting with federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in Monroe Wednesday night.
More than 200 area residents, including some from Ohio and Canada, showed up at Monroe County Community College to voice concerns, lend support or just get information about the utility's intent to build a 1,560-megawatt Fermi 3 reactor near its existing Fermi 2 plant.
The utility said it still expects to file an application for a construction and operating license by Sept. 18 and hopes to start building by 2014 with completion by 2021. The NRC meeting was designed to explain the licensing process, explain opportunities for public participation, and gauge residents' concerns.
"My big concern is with nuclear waste," said Rose Voss of Monroe. "We still don't have a solution. What's the plan with the waste?"
Barry Zalcman of the NRC's Office of New Reactors replied that the agency received an application in June for licensing of the long-planned storage facility for spent nuclear fuel to be built at Yucca Mountain, Nev.
"Our commission has drawn the conclusion that it expects a high-level waste facility will be accepting waste by the first quarter of this century," he said. He acknowledged that the capacity of the planned project wouldn't be adequate for all waste now being stored at the nation's nuclear plants, but said fuel pools and storage casks at individual plants could continue to hold waste for years.
Mark Farris of Monroe wondered if the NRC considers alternate energy's potential for meeting electricity needs in its nuclear plant licensing decisions. "Wind power has taken off like gangbusters," he said. "Does the NRC take any of this in consideration when they consider a mega-project like this?"
Thomas Frederichs, senior environmental project manager, said alternatives to building the plant indeed are evaluated when analyzing what a new plant's environmental impact might be.
Mr. Farris also asked whether the $60 million DTE might spend on preparing the license application would be refunded if the NRC didn't grant a license. "We charge for our services and we don't give refunds," Mr. Frederichs said.
Michelle Dugan, president of the Monroe County Chamber of Commerce, questioned whether the NRC takes the economic benefits to a community into account in its licensing process. Mr. Frederichs said it evaluates the revenues as well as any additional community costs that might be involved.
And Paula Stone of the Clean And Safe Energy Coalition said her group favored the plant. "We're very excited about this project because of the jobs it will bring to the state," she said. "They are high-paying jobs, high-skilled jobs and green jobs."
But Michael Keegan of Monroe suggested that the NRC was putting the cart before the horse by accepting an application to build a plant whose design hasn't yet been approved by the NRC.
Jim Biggins of the NRC's general counsel's office, said the certification of the design is done independent of application review. And Chandu Patel of the NRC's office of new reactors, said the license application would not be approved before the design gets the NRC's okay.
Hal Newman of Warren, a member of the southeast Michigan chapter of the Sierra Club, said he had no confidence in the NRC to fulfill its mission with regard to the new Fermi plant or any other plant in the country. And he added, "Despite the indications of the economic benefits that may result for the Monroe community, the health costs might outweigh the economic benefits."
He also was concerned that a new plant would be a new target for terrorism, noting that the Fermi 2 spent fuel pool on the third floor of the reactor building is an inviting target. The NRC still is in the process of evaluating nuclear plant susceptibility to an airborne terrorist action.
"Michigan needs renewable energy, and building an atomic plant here so we can have less need for renewable energy and energy efficiency is a bad idea," Mr. Newman said.
Michael Morris, the NRC's senior resident inspector at Fermi 2, said even renewable energy sources such as wind power and solar are not truly green. He said wind turbines are made from oil-based plastics and their parts often are landfilled and he pointed to a vast solar farm in the southwest that might be having an impact on the flora and fauna because it covers so much desert acreage. "There is no such thing as green energy except the vitamin D you absorb from the sun," he said.
A new nuclear plant's thirst for cooling water was a concern for Marilyn Timmer of Monroe, as well as the impact of the existing plant's warm water discharge on fish and plants.
That later was underscored by Sandy Binn of Sylvania, Ohio, who said existing power plants that ring the western basin of Lake Erie draw three billion gallons of water a day from the "shallowest, warmest, fishiest waters of the Great Lakes."
Mr. Frederichs said water usage is a significant environmental impact and will be addressed in the licensing process.
Mike Ingels of Adrian said some attention also should be paid to whether the new plant would further restrict public access to Lake Erie. He said his concern is that the plant is "another trade-off of shoreline for jobs."
"I think the plant is a good idea, but I think we need to watch and help promote access to that lake," he said.
Terry Lodge of Toledo asked "when the NRC is finally going to reach a point of truth in environmental packaging?" He said the agency shouldn't claim that nuclear power involves no greenhouse gases because such pollution is generated due to uranium mining and enrichment and the costs of replacement power from coal-fired plants "when this nuke, like most nukes, doesn't work reliably."
Regarding nuclear power being a greenhouse gas-free technology, "you don't see an NRC logo attached to those statements," Mr. Zalcman replied. He said the "parasitic load" of a nuclear plant on other power sources is taken into account in licensing.
Dorothy Bailey, a Monroe Township resident and former Monroe County commissioner, suggested that the economic benefits of a new plant might be oversold because of the long time before construction will begin. As far as jobs go, "you better start looking someplace else," she said. "We already have one atomic plant and we're close to Davis-Besse and I think that's enough," she added.
But Richard Meyer, a long-time nuclear industry worker, said "the nuclear option is one of the best we have going for us."
William P. Morris, president of the Monroe County Industrial Development Corp., echoed those comments.
"I think Monroe County is better off because of the two plants DTE has in Monroe County than it would be without them," he said. "Thank you, DTE, for putting us on your list."
NRC officials said the key point in holding the meeting was to explain the opportunities for public participation in the licensing process.
"The No. 1 message we want to get out tonight is how the public can participate in the process and that public participation is needed in the process," said Jeffrey Cruz, branch chief of the NRC's new reactor licensing division.
Mr. Zalcman said the next opportunity will be a public meeting held in Monroe to discuss the scope of the environmental review of the license application. However, no date has been set for such a meeting.
Ron May, a DTE senior vice president, said he thought the meeting went well. "Overall, it was great," he said. He said the public's views were very helpful.
---------------------------
BurlingtonFreePress
August 21, 2008
My Turn: At Yankee, money ruins everything
Michael Granger
Thirty years ago a local farmer told me too much money ruins everything. At the time he was referring to horse pulling. When the air-conditioned trailer unloads a quarter-million-dollar, matched pair of horses, a fair competition is gone. His observation could apply to our predicament with Entergy.
In 2002 a group of regional utilities, known corporate citizens, sold the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant to Entergy Corp. The lure of big profits, especially if liability could be severed, has since made the situation ever more dangerous.
Company representatives have now admitted there are two meanings for their use of "Entergy." One Entergy is the $11 billion Louisiana corporation that since the sale has had hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of dollars in revenue from Vermont Yankee. The other Entergy is Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee LLC. That's the entity that operates the aging plant nearing the end of its 40-year engineered life span. If it's found to be unsafe or financially unfeasible, as was the case in Maine and elsewhere, come 2012 the liability will be a highly radioactive plant, unemployed workers, a decommissioning fund that is by many estimates $400 million short and about a million pounds of radioactive waste.
The Legislature, with S.373, tried to prevent Entergy from restructuring five older nuclear plants, including Vermont Yankee, into a Delaware state LLC until the parent Entergy promised to make up the huge deficit in the decommissioning fund. Gov. Douglas vetoed that bill on May 7. On June 4, his commissioner of the Department of Public Service, David O'Brien, confirmed the Legislature's fear: Entergy, the corporation, was off the hook.
In the six years since the purchase, Entergy has contributed nothing to the fund. This past April, the very pro-industry NRC had to tell them they couldn't use $157 million of the insufficient fund to move their spent waste from the reactor building to dry casks. That attempted use of a decommissioning fund was unprecedented.
Look what's happened since their purchase. In 2004 a transformer caught fire due to equipment failure. Fuel rods have gone missing. There have been employees caught for drug and alcohol use. A guard accidentally discharged his firearm. A radioactive shipment to Pennsylvania leaked. The cooling tower collapsed despite their knowledge of a problem. Within days there was an automatic shutdown from a malfunctioning valve. Condenser tubes are leaking and they can't find the source. A crane lifting a 97-ton cask transferring fuel rods failed because it was not thoroughly tested beforehand. The improperly repaired cooling tower just caused another shutdown.
A recent hearing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) in Newfane showed numerous problems. Entergy took three years to put inspection data measuring pipe corrosion into the computer program used to predict system failure. Entergy's reason was "staff constraints." During the ASLB hearings, the NRC testified that they told Entergy to check three feed water nozzles, critical to the reactor, for corrosion and fatigue. They checked only one but promised to check the other two. The NRC then said it was only a recommendation and it was nonbinding anyway.
Yankee, like 102 other nuclear facilities, will store extremely dangerous radioactive material in areas never designed for it. Recent record floods in the Midwest ought to be a wake-up call for storing plutonium in flood plains, and yet Yankee's will sit in huge casks near the Connecticut River flood plain out in the open on a concrete pad.
Over 10 years ago, the federal government was to take all spent nuclear waste from power plants. The totally unlikely Yucca Mountain proposal has the EPA stating that the stored radioactive material will be safe for a million years. To put this in perspective, our nation is 232 years old and Neanderthals coexisted with humans in Europe about 40,000 years ago. Federal arrogance, Gov. Douglas' corporate pandering and Entergy's greed might just ruin everything.
--Michael Granger lives in Newfane
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
August 20, 2008
Union group protests outside McCain office
The Associated Press
HENDERSON, Nev. _ A labor coalition has staged a "foreclosure funeral" outside the Nevada headquarters of presidential candidate John McCain.
A group of union activists from the Change to Win coalition says the mock memorial was meant to draw attention to the Republican's inadequate proposals to solve the housing crisis.
Culinary Union member Judy Bagley told the crowd, some dressed as grim reapers, that McCain had lost touch with working people.
McCain spokesman Rick Gorka says McCain has a plan to address the housing crunch and charged that Democrat Barack Obama's tax plans would do harm to working-class people.
The Change to Win group is on a tour of battleground states. It planned to stop in Pahrump, Nev. on Thursday for a protest focused on McCain's support of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
Six Questions for:
Daryl Thome
Member, Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Advisory Committee
By Joe Schoenmann
Daryl Thome is an expert on nuclear issues. He responded to the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant disaster three decades ago and worked for the Environmental Protection Agency at the Nevada Test Site for many years.
Thome, 65, is a member of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Advisory Committee, which keeps the Clark County Commission abreast of Yucca Mountain issues.
Do you think Yucca Mountain is the right place for nuclear waste?
If I didn’t think it was safe in Las Vegas, I certainly wouldn’t have raised my precious daughter here ... I can’t imagine a safer place to store it.
You must be odd man out on that committee.
(Chuckles) I’m a scientist and what I try and contribute to the committee is a logical sequence of thought that is based on science, not emotion.
So, again, you have no problem with nuclear waste so close to Las Vegas?
The material is spent nuclear fuel, it’s not waste. And it still has great value. That’s why the Nuclear Waste Policy Act says if it’s stored underground, it has to be accessible for 50 years. Right now, it’s cheaper to mine uranium ... than it is to reprocess spent fuel. But someday that may not be the case.
You think we have a treasure trove here?
That’s right. And someday it will be retrieved.
In this age of water shortages, how would you feel about a nuclear-powered desalination plant somewhere along the California coast?
If I heard that was going to happen, I would jump up in the air and click my heels. If they did that, so much water would be available to the Southwest.
You grew up in Las Vegas (he was 10 in 1954, four years before the Nevada Test Site stopped aboveground nuclear bomb tests). Did you ever see a nuclear bomb test?
I hate to admit this. When I was a kid, they were around dawn and I never got up to see one. But I was young and my parents never dragged me out of bed, and now I regret that.
---------------------------
Denver Post
August 20, 2008
Denver and The West
Nuke-waste repository under review
A federal agency has three years to determine the fate of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada.
By Mark Jaffe
As the presidential candidates tweak their positions on the proposed nuclear-waste repository in Nevada, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is moving ahead with its review, NRC chairman Dale Klein said Tuesday.
Agency staff are reviewing the federal Department of Energy's 8,600-page application for the Yucca Mountain Repository.
If the application is deemed complete, it will be placed on the NRC docket in September.
That, Klein said, would start the clock on the agency's deliberations.
Congress has given the commission three years to determine technical feasibility, safety and security of the project. The NRC can ask for one additional year.
"This is big and technically difficult," said Klein, who was in Denver to meet with representatives of the uranium mining industry.
The fate of the repository, about 90 miles from Las Vegas, has been politically charged for two decades.
Arizona Sen. John McCain, the prospective Republican candidate, has been a supporter of Yucca Mountain.
In May, however, the idea of an international repository for nuclear waste was raised.
Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama has opposed the Yucca Mountain project, saying the repository should be located in a state willing to take it or that regional facilities should be built.
"We don't get into politics," said the NRC's Klein. The NRC evaluation is strictly technical, he said.
Once the application is placed on the commission's docket, parties such as Nevada, the city of Las Vegas and Nye County (site of the facility) likely will file objections and seek a hearing, NRC officials said.
Those hearings — before the Atomic Safety Licensing Board — could begin early next year in Las Vegas.
"There will be a dialogue all the way" on the evaluation, Klein said.
--Mark Jaffe: 303-954-1912 or mjaffe@denverpost.com
---------------------------
Heritage Foundation
August 20, 2008
The Foundry
Maryland Welcomes New Nuclear
Nick Loris
Last night, Heritage Research Fellow Jack Spencer and I drove down to Solomons Island, home of Calvert Cliffs’ 2 nuclear reactor stations – where Constellation Energy is proposing to build a third. It was the third of three hearings held by Maryland’s public service commission in which elected officials and the general public had their chance to voice support or concern about adding a 1600MW reactor – the equivalent of the power produced by the two existing reactors.
Of the 25 people we heard speak, 21 favored building a third reactor while 4 opposed. It should be noted that we only stayed from 7-10 and the hearing finished at 11. More anti-nuclear activists could have been waiting for their turn to speak, but out of the 150 people attending the hearing, I’d guess that for every one person opposed to building a new reactor, there were 10 supporting it.
Those advocating new build included elected officials, operators and engineers at the existing Calvert Cliffs plants, and ordinary, interested citizens of the county. One particularly interesting story came from Bobby Swann, a lifelong resident of Calvert Cliffs and adamant supporter of the third reactor. Retired now, Swann recalled living in the area when electricity wasn’t present and outhouses were more common than light switches. He reminded those in the audience of the comfort and dramatic increase in prosperity electricity brought to the community. He concluded by saying it was a privilege to have the two existing reactors at Calvert Cliffs provide the community with safe, clean and affordable energy, and it’d be a shame not to commence building a third. (He also mentioned that since he’s retired, he no longer wears socks. I’m not sure where that fits in, but I think it’s worth mentioning.)
The opposition brought the same misperceptions about nuclear energy to the podium that anti-nuclear activists have been arguing for years. Chief among these arguments were that there is a safety and security problem, that nuclear is actually bad for the environment, and that the country should focus on wind, solar and other renewable energy sources rather than nuclear. I’ll address these three briefly.
Safety & Security. The primary reasons the minority opposition posited for nuclear energy being a safety and security threat are based on pure misconception and ignorance. Two myths that need dispelling are: Nuclear power releases dangerous amounts of radiation into the atmosphere, and there is no solution to the problem of nuclear waste.
As for radiation, by exploiting public fears of anything radioactive and not educating the public about the true nature of radiation and radiation exposure, anti-nuclear extremists can easily portray any radioactive emissions as a reason to stop nuclear power. However, when radiation is put into the proper context, the safety of nuclear power plants is clear.
Nuclear power plants do emit some radiation, but the amounts are environmentally insignificant and pose no threat. These emissions fall well below the legal safety limit sanctioned by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Waste storage is one of the biggest impediments to an expansion of nuclear power in the public’s mind, and it was certainly echoed at this townhall meeting last night. We do have options for nuclear waste. Spent nuclear fuel can be removed from the reactor, reprocessed to separate unused fuel, and then used again. The remaining waste could then be placed in either interim or long-term storage, such as in the Yucca Mountain repository. For a more comprehensive answer of what nuclear waste actually is and how the problem can be resolved in the U.S., read this.
There were also general inquiries about evacuation procedures, which the NRC details here. Even though no one was even injured, another concern was the possibility of another Three Mile Island. One speaker said it extraordinarily well by saying that comparing all nuclear reactors to TMI is like comparing all cruise ships to the Titanic. Accidents can still happen but a lot has changed – the probabilities are much, much lower.
Bad for the Environment? There is sentiment from the anti-nuclear extremists that nuclear energy makes global warming worse because plants are built with fossil fuel and they emit too much heat. As we’ve said before, this is basically a witch-hunt. Whether the activists like it or not, the world runs on fossil fuel. Until the nation changes its energy profile–which can be done with nuclear energy–almost any activity, even building windmills, will result in CO2 emissions.
The United States has not built a new commercial nuclear reactor in over 30 years, but the 104 plants operating today prevented the release of 681.9 million metric tons of CO2 in 2005, which is comparable to taking 96% of cars off the roads. If CO2 is the problem, emissions-free nuclear power must be part of the solution.
Wind, Solar & Ethanol too! A bulk of the anti-nuclear agenda was promoting wind, solar and ethanol as a replacement for nuclear energy – not a complement. These were some of the most egregious arguments of the night. First, no one suggested it’s a zero sum game; just because we increase our nuclear fleet doesn’t mean we won’t need more energy. As far as I can tell, we’re going to be needing energy for a long time. So, if wind, solar and other renewable fuel sources are economically viable, so be it. It’s true, the costs of building a nuclear plant have been increasing, but wind and solar are having similar issues.
The biggest misconception of last night, in my opinion, was the thought that wind and solar are going to solve all our energy problems. According to the Energy Information Agency (EIA) in 2006 wind accounted for 4% of our energy supply and solar accounted for 1%. But this is what really gets me going. People act like wind, solar and ethanol are some new phenomenon that has just been developed in the past few years. In reality, renewable energy sources have been receiving subsidies and tax credits since the ‘70s. The real problem is they can’t compete in the market with other sources of energy, even with these federal handouts.
Now I’m not Nostradamus and I’m not pretending to be; wind and solar could very well be the future of America’s energy profile. But I do know this: It’s not feasible right now and we need all the supply of energy we can get, especially a CO2-free supply such as nuclear.
Overall, it’s encouraging to know that the majority of the town, including the elected officials, recognizes the benefits a third reactor will bring to the community. Keep your eye out for updates.
---------------------------
Politico
August 20, 2008
Nuclear energy
Ben Smith
McCain, in Las Cruces, N.M., repeated a shot at Obama on energy: "He's opposed to nuclear power."
I'm not sure where that comes from. It may mean that Obama opposes McCain's specific drive for more nuclear power plants. Obama's opposition to storing waste at Yucca Mountain, while good for votes in Nevada, also means that he's opposed in practice to any expansion of nuclear power.
But Obama's not opposed to nuclear power in the sense of -- like John Edwards -- promising to shut down nuclear power plants. Indeed, he said in the primary that it's a source America "should explore" -- and was attacked by Edwards for saying it.
In general, nuclear energy is a tricky political subject. It is clean and abundant; but even McCain, who supports a dramatic expansion, uses images of windmills, not cooling towers, in his TV ads.
(Also, and semi-relatedly, an esoteric question for the wonks: Why isn't anyone talking about nuclear fusion?)
---------------------------
Reno Gazette-Journal
August 19, 2008
OpEd: Nuclear project does use taxpayer money
Nicholas Tsoulfanidis is absolutely wrong when he asserts that no taxpayer money is being used for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project [Letters, Aug. 5].
In fact, well over a third of the funds being appropriated for the project each year come from Department of Defense appropriations -- all of it taxpayer money.
The Nuclear Waste Fund Mr. Tsoulfanidis refers to does collect funds from a fee on electricity from nuclear power plants, but that fund will generate only about
$50 billion of the over
$90 billion it will ultimately cost to build Yucca. The rest will come from taxpayer money. Erica Werner [RGJ, July 16] had it exactly right in her news article.
Joseph C. Strolin
Planning Division Administrator
Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects
Carson City
---------------------------
Lahontan Valley News
August 19, 2008
Obama: Nevada may be a major source of alternative energy
By Steve Ranson
LVN Editor
RENO — Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic candidate for president, said Nevada could be at the center for alternative energy sources in the future.
Obama spoke to a group of about 255 invited union leaders and Democrats Sunday morning at Reno’s Wooster High School.
In a one-on-one interview the LVN after his speech, the Illinois senator, who visited Fallon in January, said the Silver State holds the key for the development of wind, solar and geothermal energy.
“I would like to put $15 billion to develop new sources of energy — wind, solar and geothermal,” he said
Obama said he figured the initiative would open five million new “green” jobs as the United States tries to break its dependency on foreign oil.
“There’s a lot of sun in Nevada that can generate a lot of energy,” he added.
Obama said he would provide tax credits to producers and consumers of alternative energy.
“We can convert to solar panels where possible,” he said, adding he would like to see building more energy efficient.
Obama said Nevada could be one of the leading states in producing alternative energy and exporting electrical power to other states.
Churchill County boasts several geothermal energy plants already and four more are scheduled to open within the next few years.
When Obama visited Fallon in January, he arrived a week after the Truckee Canal breached in Fernley, causing thousands of gallons of freezing water to flood 590 homes before dawn.
One of Obama’s themes this political season has focused on the nation’s infrastructure.
In addition to the Truckee Canal breaching, California has had problems with its irrigation canal system, and the recent flooding along the Mississippi River in the Midwest showed the vulnerability of the levee system.
“It’s critical we make investments now before we have more disasters,” he said. “The flooding in the Midwest showed the crumbling levee system. We need to start efficient planning with local governments.”
Since Nevada entered its budget crisis, statewide polls are showing more Nevadans are rethinking the idea of Yucca Mountain becoming a nuclear storage site, and the state receiving money from the federal government.
However, Obama said he isn’t convinced Yucca Mountain is a sound choice for a nuclear storage site.
“I believe nuclear power is part of my energy plan,” he said.
He also said not enough accurate scientific information has been completed on Yucca Mountain’s safety.
“We need to see the most safe, effective storage mechanisms available,” he said. “But I’m skeptical to store it all in one spot.”
Obama remains opposed to the southern Nevada site.
Obama was quick to point out that Republican rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, supports Yucca Mountain. However, Obama said the Arizona senator does not want nuclear waste transported through his state.
“Why is it OK in Nevada and not Arizona?” Obama queried. Obama touched on other areas of concern for Nevadans, including veterans’ benefits and the federal minimum wage.
Nevada has one of the highest percentage of retiring veterans among the 50 states, and Obama said there should be zero tolerance for homeless veterans.
“We need to adequately fund VA (Veterans Administration) services where people aren’t waiting a long time for benefits,” he said. “They (veterans) served us, now we have to serve them.” Obama said he voted for a new GI bill that improved benefits for servicemen coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nevada also has many minimum wage jobs, a concern Obama expressed to his audience.
“We need to index minimum wage. If inflation goes up, then the minimum wage goes up,” he said. “If you work, you don’t fall below the poverty line.”
Obama also reiterated his support for the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms.
---------------------------
Red Bluff Daily News
August 19, 2008
Commentary: A look at alternatives and uranium remarks
Orval Strong
In our quest for reliable energy, doesn't it make sense to you to first check out the sources that are cheap, safe and renewable?
Seems like all I hear these days is, we need to start off shore drilling or build more nuclear power plants. Don't know if you noticed lately but air and sunlight are free and many have been extracting a bunch of electrical energy from them for decades. Sure the initial startup expense for these systems aren't exactly free, but once set up and established, energy gotten from them is.
There is also wave energy, ethanol extracted from industrial hemp and pyrolysis (I mentioned pyrolysis in my June 30 column) just to mention a few alternative sources.
Mr. (Don) Polson made a big deal of the 550 tons of "yellowcake" uranium taken out of Iraq in his Aug. 11 column. Just a couple things this provider of accuracy and the pure truth neglected to bring out. First of all, low grade uranium, or yellowcake, is a far cry from being a weapon, period, much less a weapon of mass destruction.
Secondly, the U.N. and International Atomic Energy Agency had always known about it, and according to international law Saddam's government had legally stored the stuff.
One question that pops into my mind is this, we put Saddam out of business in 2003, executed him Dec. 30, 2006 and put a new Iraqi government in place that same year, so why are our young men and women dying over there today?
I wonder why he never bothered to mention the 6,700 tons of sand we are importing from Kuwait. Remember that last Gulf war we had over Saddam invading Kuwait and our tanks were having a hay-day blasting away all those Iraqi tanks? Our guys had special ammunition composed of depleted uranium and they loved it because it went through armored tanks like hot lead goes through butter.
The down side is that this stuff stayed active making many GIs and there families deathly ill. The people of Kuwait basically told our government, this is your mess, you clean it up. So, 80 railroad cars of contaminated Kuwaiti sand is being hauled to a hazardous waste site 70 miles southeast of Boise, Idaho.
I do believe McCain and Obama should take a long sober look at the so called low cost energy from nuclear power plants. It is anything but.
Mr. Reagan said this nation is doomed to demagogues and scoundrels if the Republicans lose this next election. That's funny, that's just what we have today. His wordy column said one thing, we must allow off shore oil drilling. He says, "Americans almost 80 percent of them are angry and demanding that Congress allow drilling for oil here in the mainland United States, offshore and in Alaska."
Lets see now, our last census showed our nation had a population of 304,851,346. So 80 percent of that would be around 243,881,076. I strongly doubt that 304,851,346 people were surveyed. I was never asked about drilling, were you? If 243,881,076 people felt so strongly about an issue you'd think it would be more obvious wouldn't you?
Another thing is how was the survey questions worded? If someone were to ask me, what is better, drilling or starving to death how do you think I'd answer? Of course I'd pick drilling. Another question that pops into my mind is how much did those surveyed know about the subject both pro and con.
Finally, are you willing to base your decision on what some people you don't even know think?
--Orval Strong, of Gerber, is a 100-percent disabled combat veteran from the Vietnam War era. He can be reached at strongorv@theskybeam.com.
---------------------------
Longview Daily News
August 19, 2008
Inaction more costly than action on nuclear waste
Opponents of plans to build a nuclear waste dump near Yucca Mountain in Nevada know that time and inflation are their allies. Led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority has starved the project of adequate funding, pushing back the completion date by years and adding billions of dollars to project costs.
The strategy is designed to slow work on the waste dump to a crawl and allow sticker shock to do the rest. It appears to be working. The U.S. Energy Department recently issued a revised cost estimate of $96.2 billion — $38.7 billion more than was projected in 2001.
Much of that increase is due to new estimates on how much nuclear waste the facility will have to store. The Energy Department says a bigger, more expensive repository will have to constructed. The original plan was to build a repository capable of storing 77,000 tons of waste. But commercial reactors have continued to produce waste at the rate of 2,000 tons a year, and it’s now thought that the dump will have to be expanded to accommodate as much as 122,000 tons of radioactive waste. Inflation accounts for $16 billion of the new cost estimate. Significantly, the estimate does not account for inflation between now and the estimated project completion date of 2020.
The architects of this delaying strategy are driven by local political pressures. Nevada citizens don’t want the waste dump in their back yard, and Nevada politicians have battled on behalf of their constituents from the start. With the Democrats’ takeover of Congress in 2006 and Reid’s rise to the top Senate post, local politics have become a national, partisan issue. Democratic opposition to the project is nearly complete; even the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, has become an outspoken opponent.
Whatever short-term political gains blocking the construction of the waste dump might deliver would be far out-weighed by the strategic, economic and policy consequences of failing to complete the project.
Tens of thousands of tons of commercial nuclear waste — including 4,700 tons of spent fuel rods currently stored at the idled Trojan Nuclear Plant near Rainier — are scattered around the country at 131 sites. Strategically, it’s important that this radioactive waste be shipped to one central, secure site. Economically, walking away from the Yucca Mountain project would be very costly. The federal government is contractually obligated to take possession of this waste. Reneging on that obligation would leave the government liable to commercial utilities for at least $60 billion in damages, according to most estimates. Additionally, failing to take possession of this commercial waste would pretty well rule out an energy policy that included expanded use of nuclear power.
Ward Sproat, the Energy Department official in charge of the nuclear waste program, correctly takes exception with those who claim proceeding with the project would be too costly. The cost is significant, Sproat conceded in an interview with Associated Press writer H. Josef Hebert. “But you have to say compared to what. ... The cost of doing nothing is a lot higher.” He’s right.
---------------------------
Battle Creek Enquirer
August 19, 2008
Nuclear-waste issue is part of energy debate
As the United States pushes to develop new sources of energy, nuclear power once again is a popular topic. Proponents point to the technology's safety record over the past two decades and tout France's ability to generate more than 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy. Sen. John McCain has proposed building as many as 45 new nuclear power reactors in the United States by 2030 to ease our dependence on fossil fuels and meet the demand for electricity.
But what to do with used reactor fuel remains a major problem, with the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada a political hot potato.
Even if the Yucca Mountain site is developed, it is going to be far costlier than originally estimated, according to a report issued this month by the U.S. Department of Energy. In 2001, DOE officials estimated that the project would cost $57.5 billion over its expected 150-year lifetime. The latest report pegs that cost at $96.2 billion - and only about $16 billion of the increase is due to inflation. More than half of the increase is because current reactors now are expected to operate longer than originally anticipated, meaning that the Yucca Mountain site will have to accept more waste than previously planned.
And this month's cost estimate is only for reactors that are now in existence. If new reactors are built, as McCain proposes, the amount of waste requiring disposal would increase proportionately. Yucca Mountain's capacity might have to be expanded, or a second repository developed.
Although the Yucca Mountain repository as proposed could house as much as 122,000 tons of waste, Congress has mandated that it be limited to 77,000. There already are about 64,000 tons of used reactor fuel at commercial power plants in 33 states waiting to be shipped to Nevada.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, meanwhile, isn't expected to decide on the Energy Department's application for a Yucca Mountain permit for three to four years.
Clearly, many questions remain unanswered about dealing with nuclear waste.
As Energy Department officials acknowledge, the spent fuel cannot remain in temporary storage facilities indefinitely. But how and where it is permanently stored needs to be a primary consideration in shaping our future nuclear energy policy.
---------------------------
Fulton Sun
August 18, 2008
Proposed nuclear plant draws support, criticism
By Chris Waller
The Fulton Sun
Even though AmerenUE has not officially confirmed they will be building a second unit at the Callaway Nuclear Plant, the issue is still a hot topic of discussion throughout the county and across the state.
Several obstacles face the company in their quest to build a second reactor, and with several meetings with both the public and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the past, both supporters and opposition of the project have come forward.
If the proposed $6 billion construction is going to be built, the support of the public is needed in order to gain permission from the NRC and to alter legislation that would put an end to the new plant.
But before any decision can be made, it is important to know the facts surrounding the project.
The pros - more power, economic stimulus
According to Mike Cleary, communications director for AmerenUE, the number one reason why the second unit should be built is to provide more power for the company's customers.
“The reasons we are considering it are that we anticipate a 30 percent increase in demand for power in Missouri in the next couple of decades and we will need another plant in the 2018-2020 timeframe to keep up with that demand,” he said.
Because nuclear power is the cheapest way to produce the amount of electricity that Ameren is aiming for, Cleary said that building the unit in Callaway would be the best option.
“Nuclear power is a lower cost generating source than any other source of base load power production, which is a plant that can produce power 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,” he said. “The only other options would be to build a peak load plant - which only produces power during peak usage - or another type of plant such as coal.
“The production cost of electricity in 2007 was 1.6 cents per kilowatt hour for nuclear, 2.47 for coal, 6.78 for natural gas and 10.62 for oil.”
The increase in power production is not the only perceived benefit of a second reactor.
According to Cleary, making the decision to build the plant would also create hundreds of new jobs in Callaway County.
“We estimate that during the peak of construction there would be 2500 contractors working on the project with a peak annual payroll of $400 million,” he said. “We also estimate it would create 400 new permanent employees with a $30 million annual pay in addition to the employees that were there for the first unit.”
The project would also be an economic benefit for state and local government, bringing in millions of dollars in tax revenue.
“It would generate an excess of $115 million in local property taxes during the proposed construction period,” Cleary said.
“When it's online, the taxes are assessed statewide and we will be assessed $90 million in property taxes with $17 million distributed to Callaway County.”
The cons - safety and nuclear waste disposal
Kay Drey, a board member of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, is one of the biggest proponents of the proposed second unit.
She recognizes the allure that a second plant has, but warns of the safety issues that go along with nuclear power.
“It's totally understandable that people want the jobs and the effect that it will have on the whole county, but I think a lot of people do not realize the dangers that the plant possesses,” Drey said.
One of the main issues that Ameren UE will face, and is facing currently with Unit 1, is waste disposal.
The low level nuclear waste that was produced at the Callaway Plant used to be sent to a site in Barnwell South Carolina for disposal, but earlier this year the site closed its doors to sources outside of the Northeast.
This means that now, all low level waste must be stored on site in Callaway County.
Drey said Ameren and other nuclear operators in the Midwest have been working on building a site to house this waste, but little progress has been made.
“I find it hard to believe that any state's legislature will say ‘go ahead and send us your low level waste,'” she said. “It's not just hot but has a long half-life.”
On top of a inability to remove low level waste from the current facility, Ameren also faces a challenge disposing of its high level waste, such as spent fuel rods.
Yucca Mountain is a proposed nuclear reprocessing facility in Nevada that could process high level waste to reduce its radioactivity and house the material.
It would be the only location where Ameren could send its high level waste, and currently the design for the site has yet to be approved by the NRC.
This means that for at least the first few years of the second unit's operations, all nuclear waste would have to be housed on site in Callaway County.
For Drey, this could lead to many problems down the road.
“It is irresponsible for us to generate this stuff when there is no solution to dispose of the waste,” Drey said. “We were all taught that they will figure out a solution and that there are no unsolvable problems, but it's been 65 years since nuclear energy has been introduced and they haven't solved the problem yet.”
Drey claimed that a natural disaster such as an earthquake or a terrorist attack would cause massive ecological and health problems for a very large area.
“Someone could get in with a plastic explosive through a metal detector and drop it into the plant and that would be the end of Callaway County and the rest of us,” she said.
Cleary, on the other hand, maintained that the facility, and any new structures built at the Callaway Plant, is extremely safe.
“It's the most secure industrial facility you will find anywhere,” he said. “It's got a significant security force and barricades and detection devices to prevent intruders. “The existing plant is also safe from the standpoint of external hazards such as weather or a plane crash. Computer simulations indicate that our building at unit one could withstand these disasters.”
---------------------------
American Thinker
August 18, 2008
Gang of 10 on Nuclear Energy
By Joseph Somsel
With the increasing public debate this election year over energy policy, proposals to remove offshore and ANWR drilling restrictions have rightly caught the public's attention. While this is a critical policy focus requiring re-examination and revision, other energy policy issues are also seeing the light of day that normally are buried in the trivia of governmental regulation.
A new faction within the US Senate, the "Gang of 10", have put forward a set of energy policy proposals that they see as a compromise between the "soft energy path" types like Speaker Pelosi and the "hard energy" hawks like Newt Gingrich. Again, oil drilling captures the most attention but there are significant impacts from the Gang's proposals in other areas. Let me address their plans for civilian nuclear power.
According to Senator Conrad's website posting, the Gang has three proposals related to nuclear energy. First, they want to subsidize "workforce training." This is news? The Department of Energy has seen this problem coming for several years and has helped existing programs to expand our support for US engineering schools and their nuclear engineering departments. Already, nuclear engineering enrollments are way up, tripling in fact, over their nadir in 2001. I'd venture that some high school students are way ahead of some of our senators in their reading of our energy needs. Of course, this is a good proposal and even more help would be appreciated and wise if implemented competently.
Secondly, they propose to encourage research and development of nuclear fuel recycling. Again, this is news? Since 2005, there has been a global initiative, lead by the US, to back off our Carter-era policy of burying our spent, but valuable, nuclear fuel and instead, reprocess it to recover the burnable uranium and plutonium still contained there and reduce the long term hazard from the remaining wastes. The fact that our burial site at Yucca Mountain is projected to cost 2 to 5 times what the infrastructure for recycling the fuel values and the destruction of the worst bad actors would has been understood for years. Plus, why would we bury the fuel for a trillion dollars worth of electricity at wholesale?
The real red meat in the proposal is the tax change to the depreciation schedule for new nuclear power plants. Today, the owner of a new nuke would apply a "Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery Schedule" (MACRS) with a "service life" of 20 years. (The underlying land has its own schedule, like all real estate.) For a critical piece of infrastructure with a planned service life of 60 years, that sounds like a generous treatment of capital. It is -- but build a solar array or a windmill and you get to use the 3 year depreciation schedule. Now that's generous -- let me illustrate with a hypothetical.
For an example of what this means to the prospective investor in a new nuke, let's assume that your plant cost $6 billion when it enters service in the middle of 2016. That initial tax year, the active investors get a $2 billion tax write-off. The second year is even better at $2.67 billion but drops off rapidly after that to a final write-off in year 4 of the last $300 million. By comparison, with existing schedules, the investors would get only $225 million in write-offs the first year and $433 million the second. Assuming a corporate income tax rate of 35%, that's almost $750 million in additional AFTER-TAX profit in the second year from the revised tax treatment. In structuring the finance for a major project, who gets the use of the write-offs (and when) can be a significant motivating factor for investors. Beyond this level, I'll leave any discussion to tax specialists since my engineering training rebels at the conceptual complexities of our tax codes.
So I have no complaints against the Gang's proposals for nuclear energy and heartedly welcome the new tax treatment, which will make a positive difference to private investment in new nuclear capacity. However, all three suggestions are nothing new and need not hold hostage offshore and ANWR drilling for oil and natural gas. They can and should be implemented (or expanded) on their own.
---------------------------
Environment News Service
August 18, 2008
Free-Wheeling Talks Mark National Clean Energy Summit
LAS VEGAS, Nevada, August 18, 2008 (ENS) - "Who would have thought last year that me and T. Boone Pickens would be in the same boat pulling the same oar the same way," U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada marveled to reporters on a teleconference last week to promote the National Clean Energy Summit that opened here today.
Once political foes, the Nevada politician and the billionaire oilman who funded his opponents have decided that energy is a bipartisan issue so important that it overrides political affiliation.
"When you go to the gas pump you don't check whether you are a Democrat or Republican," Reid said on the conference call with Pickens.
The two-day National Clean Energy Summit will be a wide-open discussion of all forms of energy - fossil fuel development and nuclear power as well as renewables.
Discussions will be shaped by Pickens' introduction of a plan to wean America off foreign oil with wind, natural gas, more domestic oil production and nuclear development. Since introducing it in early July, Pickens has been promoting his plan with TV ads and town hall meetings.
Pickens Plan:
* Step #1: Using the United States’ wind corridor, private industry will fund the installation of thousands of wind turbines in the wind belt, generating enough power to provide 20 percent or more of our electricity supply
* Step #2: Again funded by the private sector, electric power transmission lines will be built, connecting these wind power generating sites with power plants providing energy to the population centers in the Midwest, South and Western regions of the country.
* Step #3: With the energy from wind now available to operate power plants serving the large population centers in key areas of the country, the natural gas that was historically utilized to fuel these power plants can be redirected and used to replace imported gasoline and diesel as a fuel for thousands of vehicles in our transportation system.
Pickens, who is building a giant wind farm in the Texas Panhandle, says natural gas is a "bridge" to improved batteries. It can be used for 20 to 30 years, he said, then we'll be into the next generation of renewable energy technologies.
Pickens also favors drilling offshore and the development of nuclear power in the United States - whatever it takes to change the unacceptable situation the country is in today.
"Now dependent on foreign nations for 70 percent of its oil, the U.S. is exporting $700 billion annually, more than four times the cost of the Iraq war," said Pickens, who has worked in the oil and gas industry for nearly six decades.
Reid says America can only realize its renewable potential after Congress reauthorizes production tax credits for developers of wind, solar and other renewable energy technologies.
"There are people standing by with billions ready to invest in the future, sun, wind, geothermal, biomass," Reid said, adding that thousands of jobs have been lost over the last four monts as a result of not extending the tax credits.
Famous for his opposition to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump planned for a site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Reid said on the conference call that he is "not saying no, no, no to nuclear."
But Reid said most parts of the country cannot use nuclear power because it uses so much for water for cooling. And, he insisted, nuclear waste must be buried where it is generated instead of being shipped to Nevada for burial at Yucca Mountain.
To Reid, drilling for more oil and gas is not the whole energy solution. "Let's make sure everyone understands," he said, "we can't drill our way of this situation, but we will do everything we can to produce more domestic energy. Just two years ago, I pushed for 8.3 million acres of drill sites in the Gulf of Mexico - now that is done."
In Reno, Nevada on Sunday, Pickens met with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama of Illinois to discuss Pickens' energy plan.
Pickens held a parallel meeting with presumptive Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain of Arizona on Friday.
In practically identical statements, Pickens said that he told each candidate "any credible domestic energy policy must reduce our dependence on foreign oil by at least 30 percent in the next 10 years."
Pickens described Obama as "very engaged."
"He understands the issues and is interested and excited by the work we are doing to educate and involve the people," said Pickens.
Pickens said McCain was "interested and encouraged."
"McCain very sensitive to security," Pickens said. "Importing 70 percent of our oil - now that's an issue of security. It's going to take us 10 years to reduce our dependency by 30 percent.
Reid says Al Gore was invited to speak at the National Clean Energy Summit but was not available. But the former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate did find time to listen and comment on the speech Reid will give today as he opens the summit.
---------------------------
PRNewswire
August 18, 2008
Unions Say: It's Time for Some Real Straight Talk About John McCain
Change To Win Launches Nationwide Truth Campaign on John McCain
Truth Squad to Hit 10 Battleground States in Seven Weeks
Workers to Directly Question McCain on New Website
Online Video Series to Showcase Controversial McCain Agenda through Parody
WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 /PRNewswire/ -- A new campaign by the seven unions and six million members of Change to Win is telling working families about John McCain's anti-worker agenda.
In a multifaceted, multimedia effort, Change to Win is launching a McCain Truth Squad tour; starting a new website, http://www.worsethanbush.org, that allows workers to directly question McCain and his agenda; and premiering after Labor Day, a two-part online comedy video series showcasing McCain's anti-worker policies through humor.
The Squad of 9 workers starts its journey today in Nevada and will travel through three states using direct action and creative events to educate members on controversial McCain positions on America's mortgage crisis, Yucca Mountain, Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons and McCain's own negligence in the Senate.
"It's time for some truth about who John McCain really is and what a McCain presidency would mean for America's workers," said Anna Burger, chair of Change to Win. "Change to Win's Truth Squad is standing up to John McCain's campaign of distortion, which disguises a Bush-inspired agenda that will bankrupt our economy for four more years. At the same time, the Squad is standing up for Barack Obama whose presidency will help build a new American Dream for working families by delivering the change our members desperately need on the issues that matter most -- the economy and jobs, health care and workers' rights."
The Change to Win Truth Squad is comprised of workers from Nevada, Illinois and Florida, including waitresses, cashiers, dishwashers, homecare workers and government employees. The Squad will highlight McCain's agenda through dramatic demonstrations such as:
-- Foreclosure funerals in Reno and Las Vegas: These memorials symbolize the disastrous effect the mortgage crisis has had on Nevada and the completely inadequate response of John McCain. The events will feature speeches by workers who have lost their home, a coffin filled with mortgage statements and workers dressed up as the "McCain Mortgage Reapers." The Foreclosure Funerals will take place at Washoe County Republican Party headquarters and John McCain's Nevada campaign headquarters.
-- Jim Gibbons Rally in Carson City: John McCain has called Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons a "Great Governor" despite an FBI investigation into Gibbons' congressional past, allegations that he got his property taxes lowered from $5,000 to $15, and using a state cell phone to text his mistress 860 times. The Squad will highlight McCain's dedication to the embattled governor with a mock rally at the Nevada State capital featuring the "True McCain" explaining his support for Jim Gibbons based on their united anti-worker agenda.
-- Yucca Mountain Disaster Prep in Pahrump: To highlight John McCain's strong support of storing nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, the Squad will hold a disaster preparation rally. The event will feature the "Truth McCain" demonstrating procedures and outfits workers will need to use on the job in the event of a nuclear spill to prevent side effects such as cancer and radiation poisoning.
The Squad's mission is also spread online through http://www.worsethanbush.org. A main feature of the site is called "Ask McCain" -videos of workers across the country telling their stories of what life has been like over the last seven years and asking John McCain questions about his record and agenda. In addition, http://www.worsethanbush.org is a hub for videos featuring candid and entertaining McCain moments, up-to-date news on McCain flaps, and "Who Said It?," an interactive game featuring prominent, and comic, McCain quotes.
The website will also host an online comedy video series highlighting through parody the consequences of McCain's agenda for working families. The videos will be produced by Olde English, a New York-based comedy group formerly of Turner's SuperDeluxe.com and featured monthly at the Upright Citizens Brigade Theater.
The following is the schedule for the Truth Squad's three tours:
Tour 1 Tour 2 Tour 3
8.18 - Reno, NV 9.5 - St. Paul, MN 9.26 - Grand Rapids, MI
8.19 - Carson City, NV 9.6 - La Crosse, WI 9.27 - Lansing, MI
8.20 - Las Vegas, NV 9.7 - Cedar Rapids, IA 9.28 - Detroit, MI
8.21 - Pahrump, NV 9.9 - Kansas City, MO 9.29 - Toledo, OH
8.22 - Phoenix, AZ 9.11 - St. Louis, MO 9.30 - Cleveland, OH
8.24 - Denver, CO 10.1 - Pittsburgh, PA
10.3 - Scranton, PA
On February 21, 2008, Change to Win endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president of the United States of America. The Change to Win political program is conducting a comprehensive mail, phone and canvass effort in 13 battleground states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nevada, Colorado, Michigan, Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia. Change to Win plans to send 10 million pieces of direct mail, make 20 million phone calls, and run a full-time, coordinated member-to-member canvass with 1,500 member organizers. Change to Win unions also plan to recruit over 50,000 volunteers for Election Day.
About Change to Win
Change to Win is a partnership of seven unions and six million members founded in 2005 to organize workers of the new American economy. Change to Win is committed to restoring the American Dream so that all workers have a paycheck that can support a family, affordable health care, a secure and dignified retirement, and the opportunity for the next generation to be better off. The seven affiliated unions are: Service Employees International Union, UNITE HERE, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Laborers' International Union of North America, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and United Farm Workers of America.
--Paid for by the Change to Win Committee for the American Dream Not authorized by any Candidate or Candidate Committee
---------------------------
Sacramento Bee
August 17, 2008
Sierra: A meeting of the natural and the nuclear
British artist Chris Drury explores the wilds and atomic legacy of Nevada
By Mel Sheilds
Bee Correspondent
A total of 559 stones are put together to make a primitive shelter in the main gallery of the Nevada Museum of Art.
The work, titled "Life in the Field of Death and 559 Shelter Stones," is made up of stones gathered at northern Nevada's primeval Pyramid Lake. The number 559 represents the genes in the partial DNA genetic code of soil bacteria found at the Nevada Test Site.
And so past meets present, art meets politics, and the country has a chance to meet British artist Chris Drury in his first museum exhibition in the United States. "Mushrooms/Clouds" features paintings, prints, sculptures and video. It also goes far beyond the walls of the museum.
"Mushrooms/Clouds," its title clearly referring not only to natural phenomena but also to the effects of nuclear explosions, is particularly timely as the national debate continues over the proposed and partially built Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository in southern Nevada, and as the Nevada Test Site continues to be the location of anti-weapons demonstrations. The mysticism of various locations in the West is also explored.
According to Ann Wolfe, the museum's curator, this is an exhibition "that embraces metaphor and analogy as tools for layering multiple meanings. From mushroom spore prints to a sculpture in the form of a nuclear mushroom cloud and videos that explore the cloudlike properties of water and smoke, Drury makes visible the subtle connections between the realms of science, culture, politics and the history of place.
One of Britain's more prolific and celebrated artists, Drury's work is in London's Victoria and Albert Museum and British Museum, and the Henry Art Gallery in Seattle. He recently completed an artist residency with the British Antarctic Survey.
Drury works with natural tools – plants, trees, fungi, water – and fashions objects – caves, cairns, baskets, bundles – making clear conceptual links between the materials as well as making observations on destruction and regeneration, life and death.
A centerpiece of the Nevada exhibition is "Destroying Angel," a large installation suspended from the ceiling using strands of microfilament tied with bundles of sagebrush, making for a marked similarity between a living mushroom and a nuclear mushroom cloud.
A nearby video shows a burning sage bundle and its smoke, referencing American Indian purification ceremonies.
Adding to the uniqueness of this exhibition, a first for the Nevada Museum of Art, is a commitment to using art as a tool in understanding the environment. Therefore, the museum has collaborated with the FOR-SITE Foundation, the Desert Research Institute, and the Pyramid Lake Museum/Visitor Center for Drury's creations far from downtown Reno.
"Cloud Pool Chamber," for instance, was installed in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada at the FOR-SITE Foundation in Nevada City. It's been reconstructed in the museum's rooftop sculpture gallery. Made from logs from Donner State Park, it's a hutlike structure with a hand-carved granite pool. Guests can enter and watch clouds passing overhead reflected in the pool.
A three-hour round-trip east from Reno can take visitors to "Winnemucca Whirlwind," a 300-foot-diameter drawing executed on the surface of Winnemucca Dry Lake, near the Pyramid Lake Paiute Reservations. This was once a marshy wetland, which became inaccessible to the tribe when its reservation boundaries were enforced by the government, and which dried up after its water was diverted for other uses in the early part of the last century. The drawing symbolically reclaims the lake for the tribe.
To view the whirlwind, a $7 day pass is required from the Nixon Store on the reservation, a global-positioning devices can be used to locate it, a hidden canister can be found in so you can leave thoughts and a thumbprint, and walking on or near the drawing is prohibited.
It can be viewed from rock outcroppings just off Highway 447, north of Nixon, Nev. Take Interstate 80 east from Reno to 447 and turn north.
At the museum, visitors are invited to add their thumbprints, using soil pigments collected from the Great Basin, to "Touching the Eye of the Storm," a work inspired by the whirlwind, and one that will grow as the exhibition continues.
The museum has put together several activities in conjunction with "Mushrooms/Clouds," including an art trip to the Nevada Test Site, talks, night readings and stargazing from the rooftop, photo workshops, a family program of native stories and weavings, and even a "Toddler Art Adventure: Veggies and Clouds."
"Mushrooms/Clouds" is a work in progress and runs through Oct. 5: "The process is probably the most valuable thing ... the way that making a work with people changes you and changes the people probably has more importance than the actual objects left behind," says Drury.
IF YOU GO
WHAT: "Mushrooms/Clouds" main exhibition, through Oct. 5 at the Nevada Museum of Art, 160 W. Liberty St., Reno; (775) 329-3333a
ADMISSION: $10 general, $8 students and seniors, $1 ages 6-12
HOURS: 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Tuesdays through Sundays, 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. Thursdays. The Café Musee (open 11 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.) on the main floor of the museum is popular with locals and visitors. It is operated by the Wine and Cheese Board, another popular lunch spot across the street from the museum on California Avenue.
A full schedule of events is available at www.nevadaart.org.
---------------------------
Jackson Clarion Ledger
August 17, 2008
Nuclear energy: Miss. at crossroads
While both national parties' presidential candidate are touting the theory of more nuclear energy as way to lower dependence on foreign oil, Mississippi is at the crossroads of the issue.
Republican candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., after touring a Michigan nuclear plant, recently said: "If we want to enable the technologies of tomorrow like plug-in electric cars, we need electricity to plug into."
McCain accused Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as opposing nuclear energy. But Obama's aides accused McCain of misrepresenting his position, saying the Democrat was open to more nuclear plants, but only when such issues as security of nuclear fuel and disposal of waste were resolved.
Both candidates have good points, but Mississippians may be closer to the actual repercussions of such talk, as Entergy maintains a nuclear power station at Port Gibson, and is considerating building a second unit.
Mississippians got a wake-up call, of sorts, last month when federal officials announced that tons of radioactive waste from the famed Manhattan Project will be transported in tractor-trailer rigs across Mississippi - through the major cities of Meridian, Jackson and Vicksburg - on I-20 during the next three years.
The waste - mostly contaminated clothes, lab equipment, tools and scrap - will be taken to New Mexico, where the government has built a vault in salt beds nearly a half-mile deep.
But that's not the end of the issue.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada to store nuclear waste produced by America's nuclear reactors will cost $38.7 billion more than was anticipated in 2001 when it estimated the cost of the program at $57.5 billion and it will require a major expansion- even if no new reactors are built.
McCain has called for building up to 45 new power reactors by 2030.
Ironically, while both McCain and Obama support increased nuclear energy, the Obama campaign has been running a film clip of a news interview of McCain saying he would not be comfortable with nuclear waste traveling through Arizona on the way to the Yucca Mountain site.
"John McCain. For nuclear waste in Nevada, just not in his back yard," the ad's announcer says. "Barack Obama. Opposes Opening Yucca. He'll protect our families."
So, McCain's for nuclear waste traveling through states like Mississippi, just not his own state? And Obama's for nuclear energy, but not for storing the waste it generates?
America - also at a crossroads - needs a better energy policy than that.
---------------------------
Grand Rapids Press
August 17, 2008
Editorial: Powerful energy ideas from presidential hopefuls
by The Grand Rapids Press Editorial Board
Energy has moved to the top of the agenda for the presidential candidates, reflecting a growing national concern. High oil prices, rising electricity costs, skyrocketing consumption in developing countries have left voters looking for solutions, both short and long-term, that can power the nation while reducing our dependence on erratic foreign suppliers. Within the past two weeks, presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama have been to Michigan to highlight competing strategies. Both plans contain some useful ideas, and some designed more to generate votes than future power.
Mr. McCain traveled to the Fermi Nuclear Power Plant in Southeast Michigan to highlight the country's need for more nuclear energy. Nuclear, a clean power source, is a badly neglected part of the nation's portfolio. In the United States nuclear accounts for only 19 percent of energy generation, while greenhouse gas-emitting coal is about half of all power produced. Compare that to France, where nuclear provides nearly 80 percent of energy generation.
Mr. McCain proposes adding 45 new nuclear reactors to the nation's current 104 in the next 22 years -- an ambitious goal. First we have to solve the problem of what to do with radioactive waste produced by reactors. Using Yucca Mountain in Nevada, backed by Mr. McCain, is the best solution. In addition, Congress needs to revisit its ban on reprocessing nuclear waste. Reprocessing carries risks but cuts down on the need for waste disposal.
Mr. McCain has highlighted offshore drilling in spots currently banned by Congress as one solution to the nation's dependence on foreign oil. In recent weeks, Mr. Obama has offered qualified support for that idea, too. There is no question that more domestic production would help the United States break a habit that ties the country too closely to the fickleness of regimes such as those in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.
However, Mr. McCain's emphasis doesn't look sufficiently to the long term. The United States and the world can't drill enough oil to satisfy the voracious energy habits of India, China and other developing countries. New oil would take years to develop, providing no immediate relief in gas prices. In addition, reliance on dirty fuels such as oil and coal must become a thing of the past.
The country has an urgent need to invest in alternatives, something both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama support. Mr. Obama's proposal for a robust program to develop clean generation such as windmills -- $150 billion over the next decade -- would go a long way toward that goal. Part of his plan calls for $4 billion for automakers to create the plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and other next-generation cars. Under that scenario, environmental good would meet economic need for Michigan.
In addition Mr. Obama highlighted a frequently overlooked energy saver: efficiency. Tighter building codes, giving power companies incentives to help customers use less energy, better insulation, compact florescent light bulbs in homes and LED lights in streets -- these are just some of the measures that provide a return on investment unrivaled by any alternative energy plan.
Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama have both hit sour notes, too. Mr. McCain floated the silly idea of a summer gas tax holiday that would have starved the country of badly needed road funds and had little effect on pump prices. Mr. Obama has talked about a $1,000-per-family energy rebate paid for by a punitive tax on oil companies, a crowd-pleasing but empty notion.
Although neither candidate wants to emphasize this point, no honest plan will come without some pain. There are no simple, silver-bullet solutions to the nation's energy fix. But a gradual weaning from foreign oil and dirty power generation would justify the sacrifice.
---------------------------
Eureka Reporter
August 16, 2008
PG&E begins relocation of spent nuclear fuel rods
By Nathan Rushton
It’s being described as a major step forward in the safe storage of the Humboldt Bay Power Plant’s spent nuclear fuel as the federal government wrestles with where to store the nation’s growing stockpile of radioactive stuff for the long-term.
The Pacific Gas and Electric Co. announced Friday that the first of five massive containers of nuclear rods has been secured in the underground storage facility the power company began building at its King Salmon site in April.
“I think this is the best thing that has happened since that (nuclear plant) has been here,” said Mike Manetas, a retired Humboldt State University professor who is one of a dozen members of PG&E’s citizens advisory board.
The Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3, which was built in 1963, was shut down for seismic modifications in 1976 and remained closed until 1983, when PG&E determined that the required seismic modifications no longer made the plant economically feasible.
The first 80 of the plant’s 390 spent fuel rods, which have been resting in a water cooling pool for decades, made the short trip up the hill Friday with the help of a modified heavy-duty bulldozer called a “crawler” that can handle moving the 80-ton casks.
The transfer of the real radioactive rods was preceded by numerous dry runs over the past few months and inspections overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Loren Sharp, PG&E’s director and plant manager for the nuclear power plant, said during a press gathering Friday that the rods were placed in the storage casks, vacuum-dried, back-filled with helium and tested for leaks.
“This entire cask design is unique in the world,” Sharp said.
Sharp said all the casks are expected to be sealed in the state-of-the-art storage facility by November and will be protected by a “robust” security system until the Department of Energy takes possession of the material.
The 76-foot-long and 13-foot-deep steel-reinforced concrete storage structure, which rests below ground on the highest point of the property, is designed to withstand nearly anything Mother Nature can throw at it, including a magnitude 8.8 earthquake.
At 44 feet above sea level, Sharp said the facility is still three feet above any anticipated tsunami.
As one of several activists now on the citizens advisory board who recommended in the 1980s that the fuel rods be put in dry storage until a more safe facility was secured, Manetas said in a phone interview Friday that he is “thrilled” PG&E is putting the material in dry storage — even if it is 20 years later.
Manetas credited PG&E for its openness and willingness to work with the community to deal with the nuclear plant.
Manetas described the new facility as a de facto waste depository that protects the material from tsunamis, earthquakes and terrorists.
“I think it is in a very, very safe environment,” Manetas said.
While there is no way for PG&E to know for sure when the federal government will remove the material, a PG&E official said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is currently reviewing a license for the Department of Energy’s storage facility planned for Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
--Nathan Rushton can be reached at nrushton@eurekareporter.com, or at 707-269-7442
---------------------------
Capital Times
August 16, 2008
Joel McNally: Canaries cringe over Doyle's nuke shift
When even Democratic politicians start warming to the idea of building new nuclear power plants, which have been banned from Wisconsin since 1983, our canaries could start croaking any day.
Coal miners used to take canaries into the mines to warn them of danger. Canaries were highly sensitive to poisonous buildups of carbon monoxide. When the canaries started toppling over, miners knew to scramble for their lives.
Surprisingly, Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle embraced a task force recommendation to modify the ban on new nuclear plants approved by voters statewide 25 years ago.
When we hear somebody suggesting we reconsider our prescient decision to curtail nuclear power, it's usually some cartoon villain like Mr. Burns on "The Simpsons" or Vice President Dick Cheney.
Doyle sounded almost Cheneyian when he suggested those who refused to consider nuclear power were burying their heads in the sand. Doyle said his Task Force on Global Warming took a responsible step by suggesting that Wisconsin begin to consider new nuclear power plants "without the hurdles that the current law puts up where it can't even be really thought about."
It's certainly true that our world has changed a lot since voters approved the ban on new nuclear plants 25 years ago. But what Doyle didn't say was that the most dramatic changes have made proliferation of nuclear power even more frightening.
When Wisconsin voters approved the nuclear moratorium in 1983, the world did not yet have the example of the Chernobyl nuclear accident of 1986. But that cataclysmic event sure made us look smart. The largest release of radioactivity from a nuclear power plant in history turned an area of Ukraine once considered the breadbasket of the Soviet Union into a wasteland that now goes by far grimmer nicknames such as the "Dead Zone" and the "Zone of Alienation."
Not only that, but the plume of radioactive fallout, 30 to 40 times that released by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, eventually drifted over most of Europe and even eastern parts of North America. The International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organization estimated in 2005 that nearly 10,000 additional cancer deaths may have resulted.
The other major world event since 1983, of course, was 9/11. Along with everything else that changed after that momentous event was increased awareness of all the deadly dangers around us.
That is made even more frightening because of one thing that absolutely has not changed since Wisconsin approved the moratorium on new nuclear plants. As Wisconsin wisely decreed in 1983, new nuclear plants should not be built until there is a national or international disposal site where the deadly, radioactive waste the plants generate can be safely stored.
Guess what? Twenty-five years later, there still isn't. The Bush administration has attempted to turn Yucca Mountain in Nevada into a nuclear waste dump, but legal battles and geological questions make the site increasingly unlikely.
As difficult as it's been to secure a disposal site, that's just the beginning. Transporting deadly, nuclear waste from all over the country, through our towns and cities, certainly would require far more careful planning and competence than the current administration has ever demonstrated.
The development of nuclear power always has required a shocking human arrogance and lack of concern about the near impossibility of protecting future generations from growing stockpiles of radioactive nuclear waste that remain deadly for hundreds of thousands of years.
The age of terrorism has multiplied every danger. The nuclear byproduct of plutonium can be easily converted into handy-dandy nuclear weapons by sinister movements or whacked-out individuals bent on destroying human life.
It's been so long since we've actually had to worry about building new nuclear plants, many people today have never heard of Three Mile Island or the Academy Award-winning film "The China Syndrome" or the compelling nonfiction book by journalist John Fuller, "We Almost Lost Detroit."
It's not surprising to hear Republican presidential candidate John McCain promise millionaire executives 45 new nuclear plants after he gets done drilling all of our nation's beaches for oil.
But we've counted on Doyle and the Democratic state Senate to protect us from Assembly Republicans, who voted earlier this year to lift the nuclear moratorium.
If Doyle's gone over to the dark side, we may have to start giving our canaries CPR any day now.
--Joel McNally of Milwaukee writes a regular column for The Capital Times.
---------------------------
Pahrump Valley Times
August 15, 2008
30 more days to prepare for Yucca
By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Wednesday granted Nevada 30 additional days to file license challenges to the Yucca Mountain repository, short of the extra time the state requested for its preparations.
Attorneys for the state asked the nuclear safety commissioners in April to allow 180 days for participants in license hearings to file "contentions" that challenge aspects of the nuclear waste plan. NRC rules currently allow 30 days.
In a seven-page order, the four-member commission said 180 days was too long to alter long-standing rules.
But they agreed to allow an additional 30 days as a "modest extension of time." On top of the 30 days already allowed, this means the state and other participants in Yucca licensing would have 60 days to file contentions.
The clock starts ticking after the NRC decides whether it will docket and hold hearings on a Yucca Mountain repository application. If the agency decides to move forward, the 60-day period starts when it files a formal notice of hearing.
The agency is expected to announce a docketing decision early next month.
Bob Loux, executive director of Nevada's nuclear projects agency, said he welcomed whatever extra time the NRC granted.
"We would have wanted a lot more time but we are grateful we got at least some time," Loux said. "Candidly, we were preparing we would get denied in total."
Nevada attorneys have said they might file between 250 and 500 contentions on various elements of the Yucca program in a bid to kill or further delay the project.
Those numbers of contentions would be a record for a nuclear license application, although attorneys say they expect only a portion will be accepted for discussion.
The Department of Energy on June 3 sent the NRC volumes of studies supporting its application to build the Nevada repository to hold 70,000 metric tons of high level radioactive waste from commercial power plants and government weapons sites.
---------------------------
NEI Nuclear Notes
August 15, 2008
Is it Safe? More on Obama, McCain and Yucca Mountain
Mark Flanagan
One of our astute readers noticed that the Obama ad we posted the other day unfairly dinged McCain for not supporting transport of used nuclear fuel through Arizona. Jon Ralston over the the Las Vegas Sun takes up the cudgel. Here’s a fuller context, quoted by Ralston:
[Sam] Shad[, host of Nevada Newsmakers]: “Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to Yucca Mountain?”
McCain: “No, I would not. No, I would not. I think it can be made safe.”
(We merged Ralston’s version a little to fully contextualize the quote.) The Obama ad doesn’t include that last line, and Ralston assumes McCain misheard the question as asking him whether he would object to fuel being transported through Arizona. Fair enough, though a little ambiguous – one could say the missing line indicates McCain is playing the same “safe” card as does Obama.
And there’s more along those line. Ralston notes that McCain might be hedging a bit now that the state and its five electors are in play:
Now [McCain] is trying to fudge a little by saying [Yucca Mountain] has to meet “the environmental and safety standards that are necessary,” as he told KLAS-TV’s Mark Sayre over the weekend. That’s the same “sound science” sop — and a meaningless one — President Bush and many others have used.
Not to mention Obama. Whether you like Obama’s politics or not, McCain does seem to be co-opting his competitor’s views since they play better to the intended audience. (To be scrupulously fair, the whole offshore drilling kerfluffle showed that Obama can play the same game – maybe it’s a politician thing.)
Truly it is frustrating. Yucca Mountain may be just too vulnerable to scare tactics and misinformation for any politician to state the plain truth: Yucca Mountain, stuffed to its geologic gills with dry casks, is not a danger to Nevadans or anyone else. Shipping nuclear fuel to it endangers no one and is not vulnerable to terrorist attack.
(Yes, we’re linking to NEI Fact Sheets. They’re pretty darn thorough –in fact, if you think there’s a problem with any of them, please let us know in comments or privately. We really do aim to make them complete and accurate – NEI would have no credibility if it, you know, lied or spun.)
Let’s let Ralston make his point:
So with McCain, you pretty much know what’s going to happen on Yucca and with Obama it’s a gamble — a microcosm of the election, from some perspectives at least.
Hmm. Frankly, we think Ralston demonstrated the opposite – Obama said what he said and has not changed a bit while McCain is nosing away from his original position. It’s interesting to see the narratives that develop around politicians solidify even when events contradict them.
Laurence Oliver in Marathon Man. Odd that an actor with perhaps the most lauded career in the 20th century should be remembered best by many people for a single line in (an admittedly hair-raising) movie scene: “is it safe?”
---------------------------
PolitickerNV
August 15, 2008
Obama to speak in Reno Sunday
By Daniel Trudeau
The Reno Gazette Journal is reporting that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama will appear in Reno on Sunday.
Obama, the junior U.S. senator from Illinois, is scheduled to appear at a town hall meeting in front of a few hundred area residents with tickets to the event.
The appearance is Obama's first to northern Nevada since U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) conceded the nomination, the paper reports. Clinton appeared last weekend in Henderson on Obama's behalf.
A recent poll shows Obama trailing presumptive Republican nominee, U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) by a small margin in the Silver State.
On Thursday, U.S. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Searchlight) and U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Las Vegas) helped open Obama's Nevada campaign headquarters.
In a statement released by the Obama campaign, Reid said McCain was "wrong on the Iraq War, wrong on the economy, wrong on Yucca Mountain, and wrong on sports betting."
Reid is also scheduled to appear at Obama's Douglas County campaign kick-off on Saturday in Minden.
---------------------------
Contra Costa Times
August 15, 2008
Nuclear energy should in our future
Tapan Munroe
It is not just a matter of skyrocketing oil prices. The critical challenges of national energy security, the threat of global warming and fading memories of past accidents have mellowed public opposition against a once-scorned form of energy, nuclear power.
The presumptive Republican presidential candidate, John McCain has proposed an aggressive expansion of nuclear power with a proposal of building 45 new nuclear power plants across the country in the next few decades. The presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, Barrack Obama, is in support of nuclear power as long as it was safe and cost effective.
The interest in nuclear generation of electricity is spreading fast, not just here, but globally. In May 2008 Italy announced that within a five-year period it will start an aggressive program of building nuclear power plants. This is a sea change in a country that closed down all its nuclear power plants in the aftermath of the melt down at Chernobyl a few decades ago. Similar discussions are going on across Europe.
Since they take a long time to build, there is considerable urgency among several EU countries about starting the construction of nuclear power plants. Furthermore, political concerns about dependence on imported natural gas have increased ever since Russia cut-off supplies to Ukraine in 2006 over a price dispute. It is not a surprise that the European countries are concerned about their energy security since majority of them depend on imported natural gas form Russia for running their electric power plants.
France is the only country in the world today that has continued to depend heavily on nuclear energy for electricity generation. Nearly 70 percent of the country's electricity comes from nuclear power plants. The country has stayed on course as far as nuclear power is concerned since the energy crisis of 1973-74 precipitated by the Arab Oil Embargo.
Nuclear power has been around for nearly 60 years and it is a big global industry. Today there are nearly 440 nuclear power plants operating around the world. Nearly 15 countries rely on nuclear power for a quarter or more of their electricity. In Europe and Japan, the share of nuclear power based electricity is nearly 30 percent.
As of July 2008 nuclear power in the U.S. provides nearly a one-fifth of our electricity from 104 commercial nuclear reactors. Interest in building new nuclear power plants evaporated in the U.S. with the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island plant in 1979.
What are the pluses and minuses of nuclear power?
Let me consider the pluses:
--Nuclear power, relative to fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas, does not produce greenhouse gases.
--It also avoids serious problem of acid rain and release of carcinogens inherent in the use of coal and oil; It avoids and black lung disease among workers when coal is mined.
---It avoids enormous trade deficits that adversely impacts the economy in various ways as we continue to import massive amounts of oil.
---It is a reliable form of electricity generation that is backed up by nearly 60 years of experience in the building and running of nuclear power plants.
---It allows the generation of large amounts electricity comparable to natural gas and coal burning base load power plants.
---The industry's average electricity production cost (expenses for uranium fuel and operations and maintenance) is lower than that of coal and natural gas based electricity. (Nuclear Energy Institute).
What are the minuses?
---At the top of the list is the cost of building nuclear power plants. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute ,the cost of building an average nuclear reactor is $6 billion to $8 billion which is four times more than a comparable coal burning plant, according to CNN. Once on-line, nuclear power is cheap. The challenge lies in the financing the cost of building plant.
---Risk of accidents such as a repeat of Chernobyl or the Three Mile Island meltdown has been one of the most serous concerns with nuclear power plants. The industry says that nuclear technology and operation of plants have become much safer in the last two decades. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, based on recent tests, confirms that conclusion. It is important to note that on a worldwide basis there have been no major accidents in the industry since Chernobyl.
---Disposal of nuclear waste is another issue that has been contentious and politically sensitive over the years for the industry. The U.S. currently has 45,000 tons of spent fuel rods stored in various places including at the power plants around the country. The Yucca Mountain storage facility issue is yet to be resolved. The U.S. needs to think in terms of reprocessing nuclear waste along the lines of what the French do.
---The final concern has to do with dwindling supply of skilled workers trained in the nuclear field as fewer students in our colleges and universities have opted to go into the field in the last 20 years as opportunities have become stagnant over the years.
After considering the pluses and minuses of nuclear power, I think that our energy future must be guided by an energy portfolio in order to remain viable in the face of multiple threats.
The energy portfolio must include wind, solar, nuclear, bio mass, and wave, in addition to coal, natural gas, and oil. The faster we can wean ourselves from non renewable resources, particularly those we import the better off we will be in the long term.
--Tapan Munroe, an economist and long time resident of Contra Costa County, is President of Moraga based Munroe Consulting Inc. His columns run every other Sunday. He can be reached at tapan@tapanmunroe.com.
---------------------------
USA Today blogs
August 15, 2008
Our view on atomic power: As energy demands grow, nuclear deserves new look
Reactors are cleaner than coal and safer than critics claim.
Access to the North Anna nuclear plant in central Virginia is granted by guards with automatic weapons. The plant's two reactors sit inside twin domes of 4 1/2-foot thick concrete lined with sheet steel and reinforced with miles of steel rebar as thick as a baseball bat. Most of the 40-foot-deep spent-fuel pool lies below ground, minimizing the target for any attacker. Computer modeling says a Boeing 767 hitting a reactor dome or a pool wall would fail to make a hole.
(North Anna: Container of spent nuclear fuel goes to storage / 1998 photo by Bill Clark, AP)
The control room belies the Homer Simpson stereotype. Operators who spend two years getting licensed to do their jobs watch a wall of gauges and are in turn watched by supervisors, who are in turn watched by inspectors from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On the grounds outside, radioactive waste is stored in concrete vaults and rows of 115-ton steel canisters.
It's not that nothing could go wrong here, but the safety and security risks seem less ominous and more manageable than opponents of nuclear power make them out to be. The nation's nuclear plants have worked without a serious accident for almost 30 years, since the 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown in Pennsylvania nearly killed the industry but spurred changes in the way plants are designed and run.
Now nuclear is getting a new look — utilities have submitted 11 applications for 18 new reactors, though no company has committed to building yet — and for good reason. Nuclear power, which already produces about 20% of the nation's electricity at 104 plants, offers potentially enormous amounts of 24/7 energy at a time when demand is rising. A coming shift to plug-in hybrids and electric cars will only increase the need. Nuclear also offers major help in reducing global warming because, unlike coal-burning plants, atomic power emits little or no greenhouse gases. Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore once derided nuclear energy but now says it's clean and reliable.
Remaining nuclear skeptics — including Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama — insist that safety and waste disposal issues be resolved before the nation builds more nuclear plants. That seems like a disingenuous prescription for deferring new plants indefinitely.
At the same time, though, nuclear cheerleaders such as Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who has called for building 45 plants by 2030, are overlooking nuclear's more serious problem. At as much as $12 billion apiece, the plants are breathtakingly expensive to build, and even with substantial government subsidies, utilities are wary.
Only one or two companies in the world can make the huge pressure vessels and other special components for nuclear plants, and there's a shortage of the skilled nuclear workers necessary to build and operate them. None of this disqualifies nuclear, but it should temper overly optimistic projections of how big a contribution nuclear can make.
The nation's energy problem is so serious that every reasonable solution should be pursued, including conservation and efficiency, renewable sources such as wind and solar, cleaner ways to burn coal, and offshore and Alaskan drilling for more secure oil supplies. Assuming that utilities can make the finances work, nuclear is an important and proven part of the mix.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
August 14, 2008
Nevada gets more time to file Yucca challenges
By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Wednesday granted Nevada 30 additional days to file license challenges to the Yucca Mountain repository, short of the extra time the state requested for its preparations.
Attorneys for the state in April asked the nuclear safety commissioners to allow 180 days for participants in license hearings to file "contentions" that challenge aspects of the nuclear waste plan. NRC rules currently allow 30 days.
In a seven-page order, the four-member commission said 180 days was too long to alter longstanding rules.
But they agreed to allow an additional 30 days as a "modest extension of time." On top of the 30 days already allowed, this means the state and other participants in Yucca licensing would have 60 days to file contentions.
The clock starts ticking after the NRC decides whether it will docket and hold hearings on a Yucca Mountain repository application. If the agency decides to move forward, the 60 day period starts when it files a formal notice of hearing. The agency is expected to announce a docketing decision early next month.
Bob Loux, executive director of Nevada's nuclear projects agency, said he welcomed whatever extra time the NRC granted.
"We would have wanted a lot more time but we are grateful we got at least some time," Loux said. "Candidly we were preparing we would get denied in total."
Nevada attorneys have said they might file between 250 and 500 contentions on various elements of the Yucca program in a bid to kill or further delay the project.
Those numbers of contentions would be a record for a nuclear license application, although attorneys say they expect only a portion will be accepted for discussion.
The Department of Energy on June 3 sent the NRC volumes of studies supporting its application to build the Nevada repository to hold 70,000 metric tons of high level radioactive waste.
---------------------------
Lincoln County Record
August 14, 2008
Caliente Railroad Spur Questioned
By Dave Maxwell
Staff Writer
Building a new railroad spur, or actually rebuilding part of an old line that once existed between Caliente and Pioche, has been suggested by Harvey Whittemore, owner of Tuffy Ranches. It would involve the newly annexed lands north of the city, where Tuffy Ranches is interested in developing an industrial park area on about 200 acres of rail-served property. It will affect those who live closest to it.
Jan Cole and John Huston, owners of the Caliente Hot Springs, say putting a rail line along the long unused rail bed wouldn’t be the smartest thing to do, because it’s geothermal ground in some places and wetlands in others. In a telephone interview from Reno with the RECORD, Ms. Cole said the proposed rail line would go right over a geothermal area in front of the Hot Springs. “We’ve got a sinkhole right under where they are talking about putting the track…I don’t think anybody’s done any real engineering look at that.”
She added, “Geothermal ground is the most unstable ground there is, so it doesn’t make much geologic sense.” She said the sinkhole appeared several months ago right at the entrance to the Hot Springs property and has been cordoned off to keep vehicles well away from the spot.
The old Caliente - Pioche rail line can easily be seen in many places parallel to U.S. Highway 93. It was abandoned many years ago and the tracks were removed. Ms. Cole pointed out that at the time the spur line was in use, “the trains of that day were a lot lighter weight than what we have today…it never was much more than a mining train.”
Tuffy Ranches Representative, Doug Carriger said what they want to do with the spur line is to provide an alternative industrial site for the City of Caliente. Carriger said they have about 200 acres in the newly annexed land that could be rail-served with the spur line. “We can offer a whole lot more on that site that would benefit the economy of Caliente and Lincoln County,” he said. The Meadow Valley Industrial Park at the south end of town is where the city owns about 40 acres. Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA), who have said they are considering building a pipe manufacturing plant in Caliente to supply their water pipeline project, needs about 100 acres. Carriger said, “We can offer 100 acres to SNWA, about 25 more acres to the Salt River Mining project in Panaca, and the rest for additional businesses that might