The Night The Lights Went Out In Georgia | Fairewinds Energy Education

70 South Winooski #289, Burlington, VT 05401 Phone 802-865-9933 fairewinds.org Written by Arnie Gundersen, Grayson Webb & Ben Shulman-Reed  Edited by Maggie Gundersen Not sure what to do with all the enormous amounts of money you are going to get from the tax cuts? Donate it to Fairewinds!  Please donate today to help us wrap up our biggest fundraising month of the year! Our work is not possible without your support.  Thank you and Happy Holidays! Capsized at the Pier: Vogtle and the Vasa Written by Arnie Gundersen Today, almost on Christmas-weekend, Santa came early to Georgia Power (GP) with a multi-billion-dollar present, when the Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC) gave GP’s Vogtle Atomic Power Project approval to continue construction! The GPSC granted the go-ahead to the behind-schedule over-budget two-unit Westinghouse Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant against the advice of its own staff of experts to continue its construction for another half a decade. Great for Georgia Power, when real people are stuck paying the bills! Why aren’t we at Fairewinds Energy Education surprised that Georgia Power will continue its Vogtle boondoggle for another half a decade? GPSC’s 5-Commissioners (supposed utility and energy company regulators), are elected to their cushy $116,452 per year salaries (2014 salaries on record) and run for office with 85% of their campaign funds as “donations” from Georgia’s energy companies, according to an exposé by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Newspaper. "In their recent, perhaps most aggressive report presented to the Georgia Public Service Commission early this month, staffers blamed Georgia Power for failing to manage the project and its contractor in a reasonable manner. Staffers argued ratepayers should not be held responsible for additional costs resulting from Georgia Power’s mismanagement of the project." Georgia has created a regulatory travesty for its people and small business owners. I wanted to take this opportunity to explain some of the history of the Vogtle Project along with its significant safety defects, and compare it to another historical financial and technological fiasco: the sinking of the Swedish warship Vasa. Although experts knew the Vasa was doomed, it set sail on its maiden voyage only to capsize within sight of the pier.  Read below to see how Georgia Power and its Vogtle reactors are now embarking on the same path. This project – the last nuke standing in the nuclear industry claimed #nuclearrenaissance – was initially funded by federal subsidies (your and my taxes in case you did not know), ratepayer surcharges that are “prepayments” for the project – long before it ever, if ever, generates electricity, and Westinghouse payments that helped to drive that corporation into bankruptcy. The Vogtle Project, located near Waynesboro, GA, was a financial fiasco from start to what should be its discontinuation. Both construction costs and construction time have doubled. As we relearn too often, history repeats itself. For me that repetitive history is taking place now with the Vogtle Plant. Back in January 1625, Swedish King Gustav II Adolph commissioned the warship Vasa, which he hoped would become one of the greatest wooden sailing vessels ever built in the entire world. The original plans for the Vasa contained 32-guns, and then a second gun-deck was added above the first increasing the ship’s armament to 64-guns. To accommodate for these added guns, Swedish King Gustav and his sailing vessel craftsmen conceived a newfangled strategic innovation to build the Vasa sailing Gunship with two tiers of guns. The Vasa’s keel – the major beam that runs through the center of the boat and connects all its ribs – it is akin to a person’s backbone – was spliced and lengthened in order to accommodate the double-deck gun scheme after construction had already begun. Other hefty features were added, including beautiful ornate wooden carvings further increasing the Vasa’s topside weight and further delaying its construction. Stability concerns for the top-heavy Vasa were ignored as she set sail on her maiden voyage more than 3 ½ years after King Gustav first envisioned this allegedly superior warship. As crowds lined the pier and Sweden’s King looked on in pride, the top-heavy warship was buffeted by a gust of wind, capsized, and sank only a mile from the dock. The Vogtle fiasco is no different than Sweden’s pursuit of the Vasa – its illusory world-renowned warship. Vogtle and the Vasa were both plagued by mismanagement, schedule slippages, engineering concerns, and crippling cost increases.   The Vasa was recovered from its watery grave in 1960 and now is the centerpiece exhibit in a Swedish museum. While tourists marvel at its ornate carvings, graduate students in Master of Business Administration (MBA) Degree programs study the causes of this calamity, which worldwide has been named the Vasa Syndrome, a classic example of hubris and overreach in the midst of worldwide technological and strategic change. Reba McEntire - The Night The Lights Went Out In Georgia Like the Swedish warship the Vasa, the purported nuclear power renaissance asserted by the heavily subsidized atomic power industry attempted to construct a new nuclear power armada of 31-proposed so-called “advanced” atomic reactors. This purported nuclear power renaissance has capsized at the pier without firing a shot of electricity to any community while ratcheting up billions of dollars in consumer costs and taxpayer subsidies all over the United States (U.S.).  After significant financial losses to real people and local communities, while assuring years of profits for the atomic power vendors and nuclear plant owners and stockholders, fully 29 of the proposed 31 illusory new reactors have been either indefinitely postponed or totally cancelled after a great waste of money in what could have been a true investment in America’s energy infrastructure and renewable power sources.  These days the only two remaining proposed reactors under construction are for Georgia’s Vogtle nuclear power plant site. The construction schedule for these reactors has more than doubled as their construction time approaches 10-years, and its anticipated construction costs are near $25 Billion, which is considerably more that the originally proposed $10 Billion price-tag. In a true capitalistic system, these nuclear power reactors would have been canceled some time ago, but the pronuclear good ole boy Georgia Public Service Commissioners have kept these two outmoded and unsafe AP1000 nuke reactors on forced consumer life support. Consumers in Georgia are already paying an extra $120 per year to finance this fiasco. Let’s give one more final look at the Swedish warship the Vasa: The sinking of the Vasa was a major disaster for Sweden. The country was at war with Poland and the ship was needed for the war effort. No expense had been spared. The Vasa was the most expensive project ever undertaken by Sweden and it was a total loss. The ship’s captain survived the sinking and was immediately thrown into jail. On August 11th, the day after the disaster, a preliminary board of inquiry was convened. Incompetence of the captain and crew was ruled out and the captain was set free. A formal hearing was conducted in September of 1628. No exact reason for the sinking was determined and no one was blamed. It’s a financial horror that America had not learned the Vasa’s 300-year-old lesson! Well before the nuke power industry’s 31-fantasy nukes were even proposed, the worldwide electric energy market was in the midst of enormous technological change. Renewable energy technology is easy to harness, energy storage is available, and consumer appliances like refrigerators, washers, and dryers are now more energy efficient. Across the world, growth in sustainable and environmentally friendly energy technology has been stymied by spending on atomic power plant construction mismanagement, schedule delays, engineering problems, and crippling cost increases. The gust of wind that finally capsized the mythical nuclear renaissancewas its top-heavy cost structure and absolute refusal to embrace new consumer and ratepayer friendly advances in generating electricity.  A change in generating electricity from the 20th century business plan of major corporations owning giant CONG (Coal, Oil, Nuclear, and Gas) power plants that benefitted the corporate status quo to the renewable and sustainable customer friendly distributed power grid was long-foreseen by energy experts and energy investment financial advisors, but denied by electric and utility regulators whose investments and stock options kept them focused on personal enrichment.  Now, prevailing corporate utility and energy production owners continue to pilfer the pockets of unprotected consumers and small business owners for the astronomical costs of dozens of incomplete reactors. These potbellied corporate enterprises now claim that such exorbitant costs were “prudent” and an unforeseeable “perfect storm”.  The truth of the matter is that the gust of wind that caused the self-proclaimed nuclear renaissance to capsize was just like the one that capsized the Vasa: the problems at Vogtle and the other defunct atomic power reactors are due to top-heavy structures created by management hubris and overreach to earn huge personal salaries (over $4.3 Million for Paul Bowers, the CEO of Georgia Power) with perks like private jets and country-club memberships, while you and I are challenged to pay our bills and support our families in this new more unfriendly to former middle-class American breadwinner. Unlike the ornate Vasa museum piece, Vogtle’s management and its cohorts are truly hunks of concrete and rusting steel that beg the question: “When will they ever learn?” Here are the taglines from Georgia Power’s About Us page:  "Value. It's a promise." -Tell that to Georgia’s ratepayers who will be billed for this ongoing waste of their money. "Reliability. Flip the switch and the light turns on."  -Tell that to the Atlanta Airport and all the holiday travelers who were stranded with no electricity for more than 10-hours. Is this the company you want operating an unsafe and untried design on a new atomic power reactor? "Service. A little Southern hospitality from Georgia Power."  -Not the kind of Southern Hospitality my family and friends down South deliver! "Stewardship. Taking care of the state we call home." -Home is where one’s heart is, not a cash-cow. Time for the people of Georgia to elect regulators that respect consumers’ needs to economically heat and electrify their homes. Vogtle - End of the Nuclear Renaissance? In August, Arnie and Maggie were invited by the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL) to present this material showing the inherent risks of the AP1000 reactor to citizens’ groups gathered in Decatur, Georgia (GA) adjacent to the DeKalb County Courthouse and as an invited guest speaker at Paine College in Augusta, GA. For more information on the alarming list of issues surrounding the AP1000 reactor design, listen now!  Big Bucks for Small Modular Reactors Written by Ben Shulman-Reed A new study from the Lazard financial firm shows that not only is it cheaper to operate renewables compared to coal and nuclear power, but it's actually cheaper to BUILD new renewable and sustainable energy options than continue to run outmoded dirty coal and atomic powered plants! This eye-opening study has been echoed by a United Kingdom (UK) National Audit Office (NAO) report and The UK Department of Energy & Climate Change, which found that per megawatt hour, the cost of onshore wind power and large-scale solar would be 60 percent LESS than electricity produced at the UK Hinkley’s Point Nuclear Power Plant. With this new information, all of us would think that most energy producers would see through the smokescreen and choose cheaper and cleaner energy sources? In some cases, this is true, but pro-nuke industry groups keep clamoring for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) that they claim are a more “affordable” nuclear power option.  Safety, waste issues, and the huge cost of decommissioning aside, how do these SMRs compare to other renewable options? Another UK government study shows that in fact, power from small modular reactors (SMRs) would cost nearly 1/3 more than the current outmoded large nukes, which we already know is triple other sustainable and renewable energy sources! In Fairewinds’ eyes these financial assessments and governmental reports give absolute proof does not put these nuclear that atomic SMRs are no competition for the successful and proven technologies of small modular RENEWABLES like solar and wind. Once again, Fairewinds Energy Education asks energy producers, consumers, and practical thinkers around the globe to see through the Atomic Power Smokescreen and create smart energy investments today.  Stay tuned – we will keep you informed! Thanks again and all the best from the Fairewinds Crew: ~Maggie, Arnie, Ben, Sue & Grayson None of our work would be possible without the financial support of supporters like you! Please help us continue our mission to speak truth to power and donate today to Fairewinds Energy Education!  Fairewinds Energy Education www.fairewinds.org Burlington, VT Support Our Work! Keep up with the news by following us on Facebook and Twitter! Having trouble reading this email or viewing the images? Please let us know! We just changed our Email Service Provider and want to ensure all our followers can still read our communications with ease. Thanks!

Fairewinds Energy Education | 70 South Winooski, #289, Burlington, VT 05401

Nuclear Hotseat #292: Chernobyl/Fukushima Mutations – Mousseau + Small Modular Reactors w/Don Safer

Womens March, 2017 | Sheila-Parks

Chernobyl/Fukushima on-the-ground research into radiation mutations completely contradicts nuke industry's "official" line: Dr. Timothy Mousseau is there and shares it all. Plus: Why does TVA/Oak Ridge push so hard for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)? Don Safer of Tenn. Enviro. Council explains the possibilities. Libbe HaLevy's Nuclear Hotseat 292.

LISTEN

US utilities join forces with SMR vendors to speed development | Nuclear Energy Insider

Vendors and utilities have formed a new SMR industry group to unlock financial and regulatory resources and accelerate deployment in US and abroad.

> US utilities join forces with SMR vendors to speed development | Nuclear Energy Insider

Small Modular Reactors (SMR) | New Reactor Design - NIRS

a few pieces on SMRs from NIRS –

May 15, 2014. New report from Vermont Law School's Dr. Mark Cooper finds large-scale deployment of "small modular reactors" would cost $90 Billion; choke off funding for renewables.

September 26, 2013. Small Isn't Always Beautiful: new UCS report finds small reactors won't solve safety, security, cost problems.

September 4, 2013. Dr. Arjun Makhijani of Institute for Energy and Environmental Research published a new paper on the "traveling wave" reactor concept touted by Bill Gates; finds that it can't possibly ever be economical.

August 8, 2013. Important new report from Institute for Energy and Environmental Research: small modular reactors won't solve nuclear industry's problems and may exacerbate them. (pdf)

more on other new reactor designs:
New Reactor Design - NIRS

Energy of the future: Nuke or solar? – It’s time to talk small modular nuclear reactors (SMNRs) versus concentrated solar power (CSP)

It’s time to talk small modular nuclear reactors (SMNRs) versus concentrated solar power (CSP) — because the future of your family and our habitable planet might depend on the outcome of the discussion...

READ: Energy of the future: Nuke or solar?

The Forgotten History of Small Nuclear Reactors - IEEE Spectrum

Economics killed small nuclear power plants in the past—and probably will keep doing so...

The Forgotten History of Small Nuclear Reactors - IEEE Spectrum

Russia To Power Arctic Drilling With Floating Nuclear Reactors

It would sit in the icy waters of the Arctic, and provide a constant supply of electricity to a massive rig drilling for oil. They could be mass produced, potentially cutting the cost of drilling projects. The twist? The electricity on these floating power plants would come from a nuclear reactor...

more: Russia To Power Arctic Drilling With Floating Nuclear Reactors

Washington State, Act now: nuclear power is not "renewable" | NIRS

Washington State, Act now: nuclear power is not "renewable"

March 14, 2015 (updated and corrected)

The Washington State Senate this week passed several bills to bolster nuclear power in the state, especially "small modular reactors" that don't exist in reality and that have not been approved by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The most egregious bills are is S.5089 and 5090, sponsored by Republican Sen. Sharon Brown. They would redefine the state's Renewable Energy Standard to include nuclear power--a technology that is in no way "renewable" or clean. These bills are currently in the Senate Rules Committee waiting further action.

In the meantime several other bills have passed the Senate and are now in the House, including S 5091, which would "would add nuclear to the energy sources that electric utilities offer to customers who volunteer to buy green power," while S 5113 would require the state department of commerce coordinate siting and manufacturing of nuclear plants, S 5114 would give tax breaks to companies in the small modular reactor industry, and S 5093 would set up establish a curriculum using the American Nuclear Society to “support programs that will educate Washington students in nuclear energy and the necessary role that it will play in meeting clean energy needs.”

Take action below: Tell the Washington House to reject these measures and urge Governor Inslee to veto them if they reach his desk.

Notes: you must have a Washington State address to participate in this action. Please share this action page on Facebook, Twitter and the like using the icons above before sending your e-mails.


SIGN NOW > Washington State, Act now: nuclear power is not "renewable"

Stop plans to build small nuclear reactors in Saskatchewan to power oil extraction from the Alberta Tar Sands.

The Saskatchewan government and nuclear industry – with public and corporate money “laundered” through the University of Saskatchewan (U of S) – plan to build a small nuclear reactor to power extraction of oil from the Alberta Tar Sands.

When elected in 2007, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall (his Saskatchewan Party is ideologically tied to Harper’s federal Conservatives) created the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP), chaired by one of the U of S vice-presidents. With industry support from Bruce Power (nuclear reactors) and its majority shareholders, Cameco (uranium mining) and TransCanada Corporation (the Keystone pipeline), the UDP pushed to establish a nuclear program at the University.

Public consultations in 2009 gave a resounding 88% “NO” to this nuclear agenda , but the government/corporate/university consortium have used the U of S to bypass this overwhelming expression of public opinion. The Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation (CCNI) was announced in March 2011 with $30 million of Government funding over 7 years. Its first goal is to build a prototype small nuclear reactor on campus. In August 2011 the Government and Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy Ltd announced another $10 million towards that objective.

Current U of S President MacKinnon and Board of Governors Chair Nancy Hopkins have been deeply involved in this project. Hopkins owns nearly $2 million in Cameco investments and is a paid Cameco director ($175,872 in 2009). MacKinnon accepted an all-expenses-paid trip to Cameco’s northern operations and exclusive lodge in 2009, at the peak of the public debate about the UDP report.

But MacKinnon retires from the U of S on June 30. We must send a clear message to his successor, Ilene Busch-Vishniac, to step off this destructive path.

Brad Wall’s government has starved the University of essential funding – U of S has an accumulated $90 million debt. Existing infrastructure is crumbling. New buildings on campus can’t open. And the $40 million for the CCNI and related nuclear projects won’t help U of S out of this crisis.

The University of Saskatchewan, founded in 1907, was once proudly called “the people’s university” – set in the heartland of the Canadian cooperative movement, home to Tommy Douglas, the greatest Canadian, the father of Medicare. Today the University has become an easy target for corporate takeover and a tool for the nuclear and petroleum industries. But right now we have a chance to stop this from happening.

SIGN NOW > Stop plans to build small nuclear reactors in Saskatchewan to power oil extraction from the Alberta Tar Sands.

DOE's new subsidy confirms SMRs not competitive in free market without government handouts

DOE small modular reactor subsidy for NuScale Power LLC misguided, confirms small modular reactors not competitive in free market without government handouts

Posted Dec. 13, 2013 / Posted by: Adam Russell

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday the U.S. Department of Energy announced that NuScale Power LLC has been awarded a subsidy to finance development of a conceptual “small modular reactor.” This subsidy is more evidence that these imaginary reactors are not competitive in a free market and may never be deployed. 

The subsidy, which would come from $452 million that DOE has authorized for small modular reactor development, is essential to the short-term survival of the small modular reactor design.  NuScale LLC has yet to reveal where funding will come from to fully fund the necessary research and development, or the licensing before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission let alone the construction of small modular reactors. DOE has stated that it will not fund construction and small modular reactor vendors, including Babcock and Wilcox which received a similar DOE subsidy in 2012, have not announced any construction funds from private backers.

“The R&D subsidy by DOE for an imaginary small modular reactor is misguided as these reactors would still produce nuclear waste, still risk meltdown and have not been shown to be economical,” said Katherine Fuchs with Friends of the Earth.

“If this reactor is such a panacea for the problems faced by traditional reactors, as claimed in the over-the-top sales pitch leading up to the subsidy award, it should stand on its own and secure funding in the private marketplace,” said Fuchs. “The fact that private investors are not supporting small modular reactors indicates a rather dim financial future. These reactors will likely never get off the ground.”

NuScale has claimed that its model can be economically constructed and deployed where larger reactors are not competitive, but there are indications that small modular reactors may be more expensive per kilowatt hour of electricity produced. Additionally, small modular reactors may produce more high-level nuclear waste (spent fuel) per kwh than large new reactors, which are facing a host of cost overruns and technical problems in their construction.

Small modular reactor vendors have also claimed that their model can be mass produced and shipped to remote sites but the company has given no explanation as to how that would be done or what would happen with the used reactors and the spent fuel produced. “Small modular reactors in locations lacking proper environmental and security infrastructure could be prone to accidents or attack, which could produce devastating results in areas that would be difficult for emergency personnel to access,” said Fuchs.

In 2012, DOE chose the Babcock & Wilcox mPower reactor for the first of its small modular reactor subsidies. Four small modular reactor models were considered for the second round of federal funding that was announced yesterday: Holtec, Westinghouse (teamed up with Ameren Missouri), NuScale (teamed up with Energy Northwest and DOE’s Savannah River Site), all light water reactors and a General Atomics gas-cooled model. “The failure to secure funds for the losing designs could be their death knell,” according to Fuchs.

"As the NuScale reactor is only in the design phase and has not even entered into licensing before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, this announcement is likely to have very little or no job impact on the sites considered for construction in Washington State, Idaho or South Carolina," according to Tom Clements, southeastern nuclear campaign coordinator with Friends of the Earth in Columbia, S.C. "The biggest hurdle will be in securing construction funds and no private money has yet been forthcoming as small modular reactors are only speculative at this point."

Notes:

Friends of the Earth news release of September 17, 2013:
Department of Energy misses target for second round of grants for “small modular reactors”

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
Light Water Designs of Small Modular Reactors: Facts and Analysis: August, 2013

Union of Concerned Scientists small modular reactor report: Small Isn't Always Beautiful, September 2013

DOE news release, March 11, 2013
Energy Department announces new funding opportunity for innovative small modular reactors - Follow-on solicitation to help design and license small modular reactors for commercialization by 2025

Details on DOE solicitation:
Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support Program,
Idaho Field Office -- Department of Energy

DOE small modular reactor website

###

Contact:
Tom Clements, (803) 240-7268, tclements@foe.org
Katherine Fuchs, (202) 222-0723, kfuchs@foe.org

FOE News releases