Tag Archives: Davis-Besse

Revisiting the pawn/toast prognostication as more reactors close

Another one bites the dust: New York's Fitzpatrick reactor will close permanently next year.

Another one bites the dust: New York’s Fukushima-clone Fitzpatrick reactor will close permanently next year.

In mid-September, I wrote a piece delving into prognostication–always a dangerous endeavor–identifying (with tongue slightly in cheek) the nation’s most troubled nuclear reactors and dividing them into two piles: pawn or toast. Toast was those reactors most likely to shut down; pawn indicated that while on the precipice, the utilities would go to great lengths to avoid shutting them down.

Only six weeks or so later, enough has happened to revisit that list and see how we’ve done. Continue reading


The great nuclear bailout list: who’s a pawn, who’s toast.

Washington DC residents rally outside the District Building September 17, 2015 against Exelon's proposed takeover of Pepco.

Washington DC residents rally outside the District Building September 17, 2015 against Exelon’s proposed takeover of Pepco. Photo by Tim Judson

When a nuclear power utility says one of its reactors is economically troubled and it may close early, should you believe it? For that matter, when a nuclear power utility says anything at all, should you believe it?

Since the answer to the second question is almost always no, the answer to the first is self-evident. Continue reading

Three Exelon nuke sites fail to clear PJM auction….bye, bye Quad Cities?

Bye, bye, Quad Cities. The site's failure to clear the PJM capacity auction is likely to presage its permanent shutdown. And that can't come too soon for these aging Fukushima-clone reactors.

Bye, bye, Quad Cities. The site’s failure to clear the PJM capacity auction is likely to presage its permanent shutdown. And that can’t come too soon for these aging Fukushima-clone reactors.

Exelon’s troubled nuclear fleet ran into still more trouble Friday, when three of its nuclear sites–totaling four reactors–failed to clear the PJM capacity auction for 2018, despite PJM’s efforts to bolster big-time nuclear and coal generators.

The three losers were the two Quad Cities reactors, Three Mile Island and Oyster Creek.  Another Exelon reactor that is bleeding money is Clinton, in downstate Illinois, which is not part of the PJM service area.

Failing to clear the auction does not necessarily mean that these reactors will close, nor, for that matter, that they are even uneconomical. Although, in this case, they are either losing money or barely breaking even.

The capacity auction is held by PJM to ensure a reliable source of power during peak demand periods, like during the recent polar vortex and on the hottest of summer days.  Utilities bid a price to PJM that they will accept to guarantee that their power plants will be operating during those times, during that span–June 2018-June 2019. Once PJM has what it considers adequate capacity, power plants whose bids are higher than the last plant bidding successfully are said to fail the auction and PJM will not count on them operating.

However, utilities with power plants that fail the auction can still attempt to, and often do, sell their electricity on the open market. In addition, local transmission constraints can sometimes force regulators to keep power plants open even if they have not cleared the auction. These local grid issues can become quite political and used to keep reactors and other controversial plants operating when other cheaper and cleaner choices may in fact be available. That is what is happening with Exelon’s aging and expensive Ginna reactor in New York, which is “needed” only rarely (some would argue never, since the need could quickly and easily be met with inexpensive renewables), but regulators have implemented a sweetheart deal to keep it running–a deal now being challenged by clean energy activists.

While it’s not known at this point whether any such transmission constraints are in play at Quad Cities, most experts seem to think that Exelon will be announcing within the next few weeks its permanent shutdown, probably by 2017. A similar announcement could come for Clinton if the Illinois legislature does not quickly act on Exelon’s repeated demands for a bailout of its reactors. So far, the legislature has balked at Exelon’s demands, but the company is continuing its all-out lobbying effort. The auction results could actually hurt Exelon’s position, however, since–in an effort to support big coal and nuclear plants–PJM set the terms of the auction so that more of them could qualify. And that means higher electricity prices for ratepayers–in this case 37% higher. It will be a hard sell for Exelon to convince legislators to now cause rates to rise even more.

The biggest spenders on lobbying in Pennsylvania: frackers, health insurance, and Exelon.

The biggest spenders on lobbying in Pennsylvania: frackers, health insurance, and Exelon.

It seems that Exelon sees a similar dynamic developing in Pennsylvania where, as the graph to the right indicates, the company (and its Philadelphia Electric subsidiary) has ramped up its lobbying spending in recent years. Added together, its spending ranks fourth on the list, behind only the frackers of the Marcellus Shale Coalition and two health care insurers. It may be that a legislative-imposed ratepayer bailout for Exelon’s Three Mile Island reactor will be high on the company’s wish list this year.

For its part, Exelon’s Oyster Creek reactor in New Jersey already is set to close in 2019. The auction results make it more likely that the reactor will close earlier than that and certainly anything, such as NRC post-Fukushima regulations, that would force Exelon to have to spend money on the reactor would send it into a speedy retirement.

Meanwhile, Exelon has released some new documentation about the finances of its nuclear fleet and this article from Saturday’s Crain’s Chicago Business provides some details about those finances, as well as how the electricity markets work. Left unanswered however, is the deeper question: how is it even possible that paid-for nuclear reactors’ operating costs are so high that they cannot compete with other generating sources like wind and gas? Nuclear power was sold as a technology that yes, might be expensive to build, but whose fuel and operating costs would be so low that nothing else could compete. In reality, even with low fuel costs, the costs of merely operating and maintaining aging reactors are proving too high to keep them running. The miserable economics of nuclear power are coming home to roost.

The problem is not Exelon’s alone, of course. Entergy has several reactors in the same position–indeed, it was when Entergy first decided not to even enter its Vermont Yankee reactor into the Northeast’s annual capacity auction a few years ago that activists saw its shutdown writing on the wall. And Ohio’s FirstEnergy is desperately seeking re-regulation of that state’s electricity sector as a means of bailing out its perennially-troubled Davis-Besse reactor and a few coal plants to boot. That probably isn’t in the cards, although the utility’s request from the public utility commission for a bailout is still pending, but it has made FirstEnergy somewhat of a poster child for the epitome of the obsolete 20th century utility model–one whose time is quickly passing by.

All of these utilities, and the nuclear trade associations, had been hoping the Clean Power Plan would set up a new means to bail out these uneconomic reactors. But with the EPA turning its back on existing reactors and withdrawing even the limited support for them its draft plan had held out, that avenue is a dead-end.

So, it looks to be bye, bye Quad Cities. And more may be following soon, as the U.S. finally begins to move toward a clean energy future.

Michael Mariotte

August 24, 2015

Permalink: https://safeenergy.org/2015/08/25/three-exelon-nuke-sites-fail-to-clear/

Your contributions make publication of GreenWorld possible. If you value GreenWorld, please make a tax-deductible donation here and ensure our continued publication. We gratefully appreciate every donation of any size.

Comments are welcome on all GreenWorld posts! Say your piece. Start a discussion. Don’t be shy; this blog is for you.

If you’d like to receive GreenWorld via e-mail, send your name and e-mail address to nirsnet@nirs.org and we’ll send you an invitation. Note that the invitation will come from a GreenWorld@wordpress.com address and not a nirs.org address, so watch for it. Or just put your e-mail address into the box in the right-hand column.

If you like GreenWorld, help us reach more people. Just use the icons below to “like” our posts and to share them on the various social networking sites you use. And if you don’t like GreenWorld, please let us know that too. Send an e-mail with your comments/complaints/compliments to nirsnet@nirs.org. Thank you!

GreenWorld is crossposted on tumblr at https://www.tumblr.com/blog/nirsnet

FirstEnergy wants a big bailout too

FirstEnergy's decrepit Davis-Besse reactor has been one of the least reliable reactors in the nation, with a long history of serious safety problems.

FirstEnergy’s decrepit Davis-Besse reactor has been one of the least reliable reactors in the nation, with a long history of serious safety problems.

The two largest nuclear power utilities, Exelon and Entergy, aren’t the only ones looking for ratepayer bailouts for uneconomic power plants. Add Ohio’s FirstEnergy to the list, which is seeking subsidies that the Ohio Consumers Counsel puts at $3 Billion to keep its Davis-Besse reactor and some old, decrepit coal plants operating.

The portion for Davis-Besse alone is at least $171 million/year and NIRS estimates that the actual price tag may be $225 million/year above the market rate for electricity. Continue reading

Nuclear reactors are getting old–and it’s showing.

The aging of nuclear reactors is a topic that is receiving renewed attention this week, and for good reason. Last year, in the U.S. alone, technical problems faced by older reactors closed two reactors at San Onofre, California and one at Crystal River. Last week we learned that the two reactors at St. Lucie, Florida may now face similar issues, while the owners of the decrepit Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio have optimistically launched a $600 million effort to replace steam generators there (steam generators were the fundamental problem at all of these other reactors). Economic problems–the inability for aging reactors to compete with lower cost electricity sources, partly because of the large costs associated with maintaining them (after all, as the industry constantly touts, their uranium fuel source is cheaper than fossil fuels), led to the shutdown of the Kewaunee reactor in Wisconsin and the pending shutdown of Vermont Yankee. Several other reactors, mostly in the Northeast and Midwest, are believed to be close to permanent shutdown because of their lack of economic competitiveness.

The Davis-Besse reactor near Toledo, Ohio is undergoing a $600 million facelift. Can that save this decrepit reactor? Photo by NRC.

The Davis-Besse reactor near Toledo, Ohio is undergoing a $600 million facelift. Can that save this decrepit reactor? Photo by NRC.

Like all man-made machines, nuclear reactors get old. Just like your lawnmower, refrigerator, car have to be repaired and eventually replaced, just like factories need to be modernized or just as often often razed and rebuilt, so too do nuclear reactors. One difference is that in nuclear reactors, which are required to use much higher quality components than a household appliance or automobile, replacement of major systems can be extraordinarily expensive. The other difference, of course, is that unlike virtually any other man-made machine, failure of an aging reactor system can lead to catastrophe.

NIRS published its first major report on aging reactors about 20 years ago–even then it was clear that licenses from the NRC to operate are simply pieces of paper. The real roadblocks to extended operations would be the cost of maintenance, major repairs, and modernization. Since then, most U.S. reactors have received those pieces of paper that extend their operational lifetimes to 60 years from 40 years, although as we reported in Nuclear Newsreel February 25, the NRC is expecting applications from some utilities to re-extend their licenses to allow an 80-year lifetime–although no reactor in the world has yet reached 60 years. Again, it’s a legal document–a piece of paper, not an assurance that a man-made machine can overcome the inevitable costs of aging-related repairs and obsolescence.

With that in mind, Greenpeace International yesterday published a major report (Lifetime extension of ageing nuclear power plants: Entering a new era of risk) (pdf file) and unveiled a new website on the risks of aging nuclear reactors in Europe. By the time of next week’s third anniversary of the onset of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, out of 151 reactors in Europe, 66 will be more than 30 years old, 25 more than 35 years, and 7 more then 40 years.

In an accompanying commentary, veteran Greenpeace and NIRS/WISE activist Jan Haverkamp argues that attempting to extend the lifetimes of European reactors “would be a multiple mistake for the European Union.” It would put citizens into a new era of risk, and spending the money to upgrade reactors to meet modern requirements (which in France, for example, is estimated at 4 billion Euros per reactor)”would be a waste of money” that would be better used to ensure that alternative energy sources are there when the reactors close.

Concludes Haverkamp, “The European leaders will discuss our energy future not too far after the third anniversary of the Fukushima catastrophe. If they don’t shed the shackles to their big energy companies, we will be facing more Fukushimas with our ageing nuclear fleet. The last thing you want if you face a climate crisis as we do now, is being tied in by a nuclear accident. It’s time to set the switches right: 55% greenhouse gas reductions in 2030, a binding minimum of 45% renewables and 40% efficiency increase. Nuclear power can’t help to deliver these targets.”

In the U.S., Dave Lochbaum of Union of Concerned Scientists has also raised the aging issue recently. In Nuclear Plants and Nuclear Excuses: This is Getting Old on UCS’ All Things Nuclear blog, Lochbaum examines an October 2013 report from the NRC’s independent Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited the NRC’s oversight of active component aging.

The OIG audit concluded:

“The NRC’s approach for oversight of licensee’s management of active component aging is not focused or coordinated. This has occurred because NRC has not conducted a systematic evaluation of program needs for overseeing licensees’ aging management for active components since the establishment of the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) in 2000, and does not have mechanisms for systematic and continual monitoring, collecting, and trending of age-related data for active components. Consequently, NRC cannot be fully assured that it is effectively overseeing licensees’ management of aging active components.”

The NRC staff replied to a draft version of the audit and the OIG then responded–very critically–to eleven separate NRC replies. Lochbaum looked at each reply and response and concluded the final score was OIG 11, NRC 0.

Lochbaum’s final thoughts are well worth keeping in mind, especially by those in the areas populated by aging U.S. reactors (which, of course, is nearly all U.S. reactors).

“The blog’s title of “This is Getting Old” applies to both safety components at nuclear power plants and to the NRC’s tired denials.

The reason the NRC’s Operating Experience Branch reviewed five years of data was to ascertain what is working well and where improvements might be warranted. The report it produced well served that purpose.

OIG’s audit had a similar objective in determining where the NRC is doing well and where improvements are warranted. The audit report it produced fully met that objective.

Collectively, these reports constitute an action plan identifying which practices should be sustained and those practices to be supplemented or strengthened.

But instead of viewing the reports as roadmaps showing timely mid-course corrections, NRC’s senior management responded by essentially denying that the eleven problems even exist.

In a sad sense, they are quite right—it’s not that eleven problems exist. Their denial of the problems makes for an even dozen—the eleven problems joined by the stubborn refusal to authorize the improvements so clearly identified and badly needed.

The first step in any 12-step program involves admitting there’s a problem to be solved. NRC’s senior managers should stop their two-step pretending that no problems exist and start on the path to solutions.

Michael Mariotte

Permalink: https://safeenergy.org/2014/03/06/nuclear-reactors-are-getting-old-and-its-showing/

Comments are welcome! Say your piece above. Start a discussion. Don’t be shy; this blog is for you.

If you like GreenWorld, you can help us reach more people. Just use the icons below to “like” our posts and to share them on the various social networking sites you use. And if you don’t like GreenWorld, please let us know that too. Send an e-mail with your comments/complaints/compliments to nirsnet@nirs.org. Thank you!

Note: If you’d like to receive GreenWorld via e-mail daily, send your name and e-mail address to nirsnet@nirs.org and we’ll send you an invitation. Note that the invitation will come from a GreenWorld@wordpress.com address and not a nirs.org address, so watch for it.

Nuclear Newsreel, Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Nuclear Power

The Nuclear Energy Institute is still whining that since nuclear power can’t compete in the marketplace, it should get special treatment. As we predicted last week (Nuclear Newsreel, February 12, 2014), NEI CEO Marvin Fertel’s pitch to Wall Street focused heavily on the notion that the “current competitive market that power producers bid into doesn’t adequately value the reliability the industry’s plants provide.” What he means by that–and what is on top of the nuclear industry’s agenda for 2014–is that to avoid more reactor shutdowns this year and in coming years, regulators will have to force consumers to pay higher prices for electricity just because the electricity is generated from nuclear reactors. Why? There really is no rational reason why, but Fertel and the industry argue that it’s because nuclear provides “baseload” power, which readers of GreenWorld, at least, know by now is an increasingly obsolete construct. And it doesn’t even work on its own terms, since nuclear’s current primary competitor–natural gas–can also provide “baseload” power.

But the argument isn’t even effective against intermittent renewables like wind and solar since distributed generation and a smart grid are able to adjust to their intermittency and use their power as it is available and needed–and at a lower cost than nuclear.

The industry is clearly pining for the good old days of electricity markets regulated by Public Service Commissions the industry controlled. NEI spokesman Steve Kerekes admits as much: “In states where the marketplace is more regulated and utility regulators guarantee the rate of return energy companies receive for building and operating new plants, there is investment in new nuclear reactors, Kerekes said.”

It’s not yet clear exactly how the industry would be able to rig electricity markets so that power from nuclear reactors would receive preferential treatment–after all, a primary foundation of the deregulated marketplace is remove such authority from regulators and avoid such price-rigging. But since the nuclear industry will be focusing on this issue, it will be important for clean energy advocates to stay on top of their activities.

34 clean energy groups, including NIRS, submit petition to NRC to suspend all licensing activity until fuel pool fire risk addressed. Link is to press release (pdf) and full petition can be found on NIRS’ website here.

Nuclear power can’t save climate, reason 1212: Researchers say climate-induced water shortages could disrupt Britain’s electricity supply in coming decades. And nuclear power–even using seawater–won’t help. Wind power will, according to this upcoming study reported by The Guardian.

As if on cue (Nuclear Newsreel, February 12, 2014), First Energy has begun replacing steam generators at Davis-Besse reactor, and the problems already have begun: a 6-12 inch wide “gap” in concrete containment wall found.

Radioactive waste casks outside the WIPP facility. Photo from DOE

Radioactive waste casks outside the WIPP facility. Photo from DOE

It’s the usual statement from the Department of Energy: “no danger to human health or the environment,” but the reality is that the government doesn’t know why there are high radiation readings at the WIPP radioactive waste site. And the public still doesn’t know just how high those readings are. We noted last week (Nuclear Newsreel, February 10,2014) that some have been touting the WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Project) site as a possible replacement for the failed Yucca Mountain high-level radwaste dump. But high radiation readings–and last week’s truck fire at the site–don’t exactly inspire confidence in WIPP. Right now, WIPP takes only transuranic waste (very long-lived radioisotopes like Plutonium but with relatively low radioactivity). Putting high-level, high-activity waste in there would be a very different matter.

Clean Energy

Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are hampering the shift toward renewables. Governments worldwide spend nearly $2 Trillion per year propping up the various fossil fuels, and only about $88 billion/year supporting renewables. That imbalance is slowing the implementation of renewables. Add in nuclear subsidies, which, in the U.S. at least traditionally has been the most subsidized energy industry, and it’s almost amazing that renewables are growing as fast as they are. That says a lot about renewables’ advantages. Of course, when externalities are factored in, renewables are the cheapest source of energy just about everywhere.

As is often the case, Denmark is leading the way on addressing climate change and ignoring the fossil fuel/nuclear lobbies. A bill is expected to pass Parliament soon that will require the country to reduce carbon emissions by 40% by 2020–well ahead of European Union and U.S. targets, and Denmark is continuing its commitment to be 100% carbon-free by 2050. And they are doing it without nuclear power.

Graph from American Wind Energy Association

Graph from American Wind Energy Association

Why states that produce more wind energy have lower power prices. A new study from American Wind Energy Association shows that in the states that receive more than seven percent of their power from wind, electricity prices have actually dropped over the past five years. Power prices have increased in the other 39 states experienced average increase of almost eight percent. The article, from EcoWatch adds that “A Synapse Energy Economics analysis discovered that large investments in wind energy in the Midwest would reduce power-supply costs by $3 billion to $9.4 billion per year—between $63 and $200 per customer per year after accounting for the cost of transmission.”

Renewable energy costs are falling in Michigan. Probably in your state too. In Michigan, wind is the driving factor in reduced electricity costs. But solar power, especially rooftop, will continue the dramatic cost reductions of the past couple of years, according to this article. Indeed, the cost decline may well accelerate. That’s good news for consumers–meaning all of us.

Inside Washington

Confidential DOE study finds that completing MOX (plutonium fuel) plant could cost another $30 Billion on top of the $4 Billion already spent. The Obama administration has been trying to end this unnecessary and dangerous project, but South Carolina legislators, especially Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) have been lobbying hard for the pork-barrel dollars. This study will provide the administration with new ammunition to try to convince Congress to finally stop the funding flow.

Michael Mariotte

Permalink: https://safeenergy.org/2014/02/06/nuclear-newsreel-tuesday-february-18-2014/

Comments are welcome! Say your piece below. Start a discussion. Don’t be shy; this blog is for you.

Note: If you’d like to receive GreenWorld via e-mail daily, send your name and e-mail address to nirsnet@nirs.org and we’ll send you an invitation. Note that the invitation will come from a GreenWorld@wordpress.com address and not a nirs.org address, so watch for it.

Nuclear Newsreel, Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Nuclear Power

Tom Henry’s (Toledo Blade) blog: The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is pinning a lot of hopes on its upcoming Wall Street briefing tomorrow. Henry says NEI President Marvin Fertel will try to “regain some of the investor confidence it has lost in recent years.” That’s a tall order. Wall Street already has bailed out of supporting any new nuclear reactor construction; the real concern for NEI and the nuclear industry is that the trend of reactor shutdowns that began last year will continue and perhaps accelerate. But it’s not likely that Wall Street will care that much–reactor shutdowns are occurring for two primary reasons: 1) in some parts of the country even existing nuclear reactors that are paid for cannot compete with other sources of energy, especially natural gas and renewables and 2) self-inflicted wounds from botched and expensive repair jobs and other aging reactor problems as at San Onofre and Crystal River.

Davis-Besse. This is not what a reactor pressure vessel head is supposed to look like.

Davis-Besse. This is not what a reactor pressure vessel head is supposed to look like.

Davis-Besse is highly likely to be the next one on that list as it undergoes steam generator replacement over the next several weeks–even if the replacement itself goes smoothly, who knows what other underlying problems will be uncovered during the process? Davis-Besse has a long history of expensive safety issues that were discovered well after the fact, including the infamous hole in the top of its reactor pressure vessel and cracks in its containment building which First Energy claims came from the very cold winter of 1978.

Fertel is likely to argue for a restructuring of electricity markets to give preferential treatment for nuclear power because, well, because it’s nuclear power, dammit. Meaning he’ll argue that nuclear power is “baseload” power and those pesky renewables are “intermittent,” even though the future of the electric grid is for distributed generation that can easily handle “intermittent” renewables. In fact, large nuclear power reactors are a hindrance to a grid designed to handle clean energy technologies because power that is more expensive (like nuclear) is used last, and nuclear reactors cannot power up and down quickly enough to be useful in that context. Further, when large reactors scram or shut down for other reasons, especially suddenly (and reactors to tend to do that from time to time), they need large amounts of replacement power to be able to be brought online suddenly. A 200 MW wind farm that encounters a breeze-free day is one problem, a 1200 MW nuclear reactor that scrams is quite another.

Fertel is also likely to say that the cold weather snaps the midwest and east have been experiencing this winter are further proof that nuclear power is needed, since many reactors have been keeping up a steady high capacity factor and gas prices have spiked. That argument may play to this crowd, if they can even get to the briefing, since New York City is expected to get about a foot of snow overnight….. Then again, if that’s the best argument the industry has: that it runs when it snows, the industry is in weaker position than perhaps even Wall Street realizes. After all, if its power is still more expensive, and snow is only a factor about two months a year (and wind farms have continued to operate just fine during this winter), that’s not much on which to hang the prospects of an entire industry….

You’ll be able to watch the NEI briefing live beginning at 8:30 am eastern time here: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nei-s-wall-street-briefing

California PUC issues its proposal to replace San Onofre power: a lot of clean energy, but should be more. Under the proposal, which will be voted on in March, San Diego Gas & Electric would have to build 200 MW of new clean energy; Southern California Edison would have to build 400 MW. But that leaves 800 MW that could be new natural gas plants, which environmentalists oppose.

UCS: All six of TVA’s nuclear reactors are among 23 reactors identified as worst by NRC report cards. UCS reactor safety expert Dave Lochbaum explains the NRC’s “report card” rankings and discusses why TVA is the worst-performing utility in the country. Why are there six TVA reactors on the list? According to Lochbaum, “Probably because TVA only operates six reactors.”

Greenpeace UK analysis of European Commission’s initial verdict on UK’s proposed subsidies to build Hinkley Point reactors. Article includes link to the full 70-page Commission report, which may result in a finding that the project violates European Commission rules. That would almost certainly end the project for good, but would save British ratepayers billions of dollars. Perhaps the most telling finding: The Commission also said that all these favours being done for the nuclear industry “might crowd out alternative investments in technologies or combinations of technologies, including renewable energy sources.” That’s the hope of the nuclear industry everywhere, and the concern of clean energy advocates everywhere. Unfortunately, financial resources are not infinite. Spending billions of dollars on risky and dangerous nuclear reactors makes those billions of dollars unavailable to spend on the 21st century clean energy technologies that can actually address our climate crisis and improve our lives.

Clean Energy

Details emerge on ConEd’s plans for large-scale energy storage as part of its replacement plan for Indian Point’s power. But California is still leading the way on storage as the technology moves from demonstration project stage to early commercialization. The next stage, of course, is widespread commercialization and when that happens the need for “baseload” power from large-scale power plants, nuclear or otherwise, will begin to disappear.

Sol-Systems-What-Investors-Want-InfographicInfographic: what solar investors want. The infographic may be self-explanatory, but a lot of work went into creating it; read about it here.

It’s not just energy efficiency anymore: Smart buildings are another factor that will rapidly change electric utilities and help bring a clean energy future. Key quote from the article: “Thanks to smart grid and smart building technologies, the relationship between utilities and buildings is shifting. It is moving from a one-way relationship–-utilities produce energy and buildings consume it-–to a two-way relationship, whereby buildings generate electricity on-site and sell it back to the utilities.”

Scotland-1, Trump-0. Donald Trump loses battle to stop offshore wind farm in Scotland; court rules it can be built. Trump thinks offshore wind turbines will ruin the view from whatever mansion he built or plans to build. The court thinks addressing Scotland’s power needs is a bit more important

Inside Washington

Senate Energy Committee Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has confirmed what we reported here yesterday: S. 1240, the Committee’s Mobile Chernobyl radioactive waste legislation is dead for this Congress. Of course, as a co-sponsor of the bill, Sen. Murkowski doesn’t call it “Mobile Chernobyl….” But, as a co-sponsor, she is in a good position to know whether the bill will move or not. Clearly it won’t. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), another co-sponsor, notes here that some senators are concerned that the “interim” high-level radioactive waste sites the bill is intended to encourage would become de facto permanent ones. Hmm, that’s one point we’ve been making for a year now…..

From DeSmogBlog: 76 big business groups announce offensive against Obama administration carbon rules, renewable energy. Last week, Entergy and Exelon spoke at a Platt’s energy conference and while they don’t appear to be joining the group taking on the carbon rules (although we haven’t seen the full list of the 76 groups), they also plan a direct assault on renewable energy programs this year. Duke Energy already is doing that in North Carolina and ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) is planning on attacking renewable energy laws across the country, despite having failed in similar assaults last year. See a trend here? The big polluting energy companies have a fundamental choice: adapt to renewable energy and all that goes with it–distributed generation and a whole new utility model that we’ve been discussing in these pages for weeks or fight back and try to kill renewable energy before it grows into the country’s dominant energy source. The progressive companies, like NRG Energy, are making the first choice; the dinosaurs wagging their tails are joining together in what may be their last-ditch effort to restore the 1970s to American life.

Michael Mariotte

Permalink: https://safeenergy.org/2014/02/06/nuclear-newsreel-wednesday-february-12-2014/

Comments are welcome! Say your piece below. Start a discussion. Don’t be shy; this blog is for you.

Note: If you’d like to receive GreenWorld via e-mail daily, send your name and e-mail address to nirsnet@nirs.org and we’ll send you an invitation. Note that the invitation will come from a GreenWorld@wordpress.com address and not a nirs.org address, so watch for it.