AustinAction Sanity Island

This question is quickly creeping on us. If you think nuclear energy is the way to solve our energy problems then you might be encouraged. But if you have concerns about how “clean” or safe this resource is then you better sit up and take notice. Our City is considering investing in more nuclear energy…again.

WHO WE ARE
How do we express our values? The answer is: By the choices we make. I ask Austin and our Council and Mayor: Do we want Austin to be a Leader and the Renewable Energy Capital of the World or do we want to express an acceptance of nuclear as a viable safe energy resource? What is Austin going to be about?

Some of you probably still remember the pitched battles in the early 70’s over the nuclear question. In 1972, Austin voted to reject the South Texas Nuclear Project. But the following winter and spring brought gas shortages and the Arab oil embargo, and by fall the Austin public became more open to “fuel diversification”. In mid 1973 San Antonio signed on as a partner in the South Texas Nuclear project. Austin joined in December later that same year with a narrow majority of 700 votes. Today, since Austin has an interest in the STNP there is a contractual obligation to offer Austin the option to participate. San Antonio has signed on as a partner. The City of Austin staff and Council are now working to consider whether we should follow suit once again.

WHO WOULD BE OUR PARTNER?
NRG Energy, Inc., who currently holds a 44% share in the South Texas Nuclear Project climbed out of bankruptcy in 2003 and last year paid $2 million to settle allegations of manipulating natural gas markets. Recently they’ve agreed to pay half a million to settle allegations of intentionally misleading New England regulators. Is this a company we want to partner with?

WHAT STNP IS AND THE MONETARY COSTS
The South Texas Nuclear project, located about 90 miles southwest of Houston near Bay City, was Texas’ first nuclear power plant. It began construction in 1976 with an original budget estimate of $964,000,000. The project’s two units became operational in 1988 and the second in 1989 at an actual cost of $5.6 billion. That is 12 years to become operational (8 years later than scheduled) and almost 6X over budget. Wall Street financial analysts anticipate new nuclear reactors will cost billions more. The current nuclear proposal is estimated to cost $6.6-$8.6 billion. NRG is telling Austin it will build the new nukes for about the same price as the 1989 South Texas Nuclear Project. Is anyone able to build at the same price they could 25 years ago? Has the price of steel and concrete gone down?

In 1989, the plant was completed at a cost of $2,240/Kilowatt ($5.6 billion/2500MW). The time frame for this new one has an estimated start of construction date of 2010 with anticipation of becoming operational by 2014. With the original STNP taking 12 years to complete it is reasonable to suggest the 2014 date might be optimistic.

In 2014, the low cost will be $2,444/Kilowatt ($6.6 billion/2700 MW). Moody’s Corporate Finance Estimate is $16.2 billion not $6.6 billion. I encourage you to do the math from our historical experience to explore what the costs may really conceivably be.

Basically, nuclear energy is expensive. It isn’t self supporting or sustainable. It requires huge subsidies granted through the 2005 Energy bill and the extension of the 1957 Price-Anderson Act. These pieces of legislation relieve the industry from bearing the full cost of insurance for construction delays allowing them to draw out construction with no penalty except to the taxpayer who has to foot the bill for cost overruns. They enjoy government backed loan guarantees at much lower rates than other larger utilities when making risky investments. Also, because the insurance companies aren’t willing to bear all the risk in case of nuclear accident, the nuclear industry is subsidized on this too by limiting how much insurance they have to carry and capping their total liability. Sweet deal huh?

IS NUCLEAR ENERGY SUSTAINABLE?
Isn’t nuclear energy a cleaner option than coal in the face of global warming? I recently heard this comparison: It’s like quitting smoking and taking up crack.

A report from the Energy Watch Group states that uranium reserves will be exhausted by 2030, indicating the loss of future expansion and replacement of aging reactors as a reliable source of energy. Refer to www.energywatchgroup.org for their Uranium Report.

IS NUCLEAR ENERGY CLEAN?
Nuclear Energy is dirty from start to finish. Uranium mining and processing results in radioactive contamination of the environment and poses a threat to public safety in its use, transport, and storage. Groundwater is contaminated.

And the end process of how to deal with the waste remains unresolved after 50 years of trying. At existing storage facilities there are outstanding safety issues that exist, such as water seepage and cask corrosion, and limited existing storage capacity. New processes to reduce toxicity are extremely expensive and dangerous and still do not eliminate the need for eventual permanent repository that must be kept secure and intact for hundreds of thousands of years. So that is the bad part about the start and finish. Now lets look at the in between…

IS NUCLEAR ENERGY SAFE?
The South Texas Nuclear Project was fined and forced to shut down both of its units in 1993 after investigations by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission identified various violations. STNP was not allowed to become operational again until 14 months later. Matthew Wald, a New York Times reporter, wrote about cooling water leakages through two penetrations where instruments were inserted into the core in 2003.

Since then, there are some indications that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission isn’t properly serving its mission. A report from the General Accounting Office in 2004 criticized the NRC for not discovering severe problems at a nuclear reactor vessel in Ohio. Earlier in 2001 the NRC had allowed a delay in safety inspection at the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant. This delay resulted in the creation of the fifth ranked most dangerous incident since 1979. It was discovered that boric acid had eaten almost all the way through the 6 1/2” thick reactor pressure valve head with only 3/8” thickness left of the shell as described in a NRC report on the incident. On top of safety concerns, the utility had to spend an additional $600 million in repairs and upgrades and in 2005 faced additional imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $5,450,000 for their multiple violations.

Additionally, an NRC Office of Inspector General report revealed many employees were concerned that the NRC “was becoming influence by private industry and its power to regulate is diminishing”.

Then there is Chernobyl. It was certainly catastrophic to the immediate community surrounding the plant but winds carried the radioactivity away and beyond. The Russian government admitted the Chernobyl disaster only after Swedish instruments detected radioactive fall-out from the explosion. And surrounding countries experienced spikes of various types of cancer and genetic mutations in children later born to exposed parents. A Swedish website Chernobyl.info states, “There is consensus that at least 1800 children and adolescents in the most severely contaminated areas of Belarus have contracted cancer of the thyroid because of the reactor disaster. It is feared that the number of thyroid cancer cases among people who were children and adolescents when the accident happened will reach 8000 in coming decades.” With some predictions reaching upward to 100,000. There are also indications of increased incidences of breast cancer and other tumors. The number of cases has doubled in one of the most severely contaminated areas of Belarus, Gomel. 


IS NUCLEAR ENERGY SECURE?
Despite 9/11, the 103 operating reactors around the country remain unprepared for attack. Plants are warned months in advance of mock terrorist attacks allowing them to prepare for them. These tests are run every three years instead of annually, and almost half the plants tested between 1999-2001 failed. Also none of the existing plants were designed to take impacts from airplane crashes and new plant designs are not being adapted for this either.

In 2006 the Union of Concerned Scientists reported numerous security weaknesses at the South Texas Nuclear Project:

• Non-functioning radios and degraded bridge floors inhibit the performance of security personnel during an attack. New security posts were installed hastily and do not provide adequate protection from the elements. Excessive heat, flooding, or cold can impair officers’ ability to defend the nuclear plant.
• The training for vehicle checks is inadequate. Security personnel have to locate a hidden dummy pipe bomb on a vehicle but are not trained to search for plastic explosives or other devices.
• Safety conscious work environment: Security officers who raise safety concerns to Wackenhut, STP, or the NRC are subject to retaliation by management. A December 30, 2005 NRC report stated: “Attempts to resolve several issues with Wackenhut management has been met with hostility and has created a chilled work environment”.

IS NUCLEAR ENERGY EFFICIENT?
The mining and enrichment of uranium, the construction, maintenance, and decommissioning of nuclear reactors produce enormous fossil fuel emissions estimated to be about 20%-30% with high-grade uranium and with low-grade uranium more than what a gas plant would produce. Plants also require lots of cool water to operate at safe temperatures. The availability of cool water is becoming more scarce. Nuclear plants in France had to shut down during the summer heat waves in 2003 and 2006 because the cooling water was too hot. Nuclear plants will have to go off-line if the projected increase in global temperatures is accurate, reducing supply and driving up the price of electricity. Does this seem like a viable, reliable, sustainable solution?

BETTER SOLUTIONS
Amory Lovins told Austin City Council in 1986 “It’s cheaper to save electricity than make it” and the City of Austin works hard to capture those efficiencies. But we must work harder if we are to avoid this false, short term and dangerous nuclear proposal as a solution to our energy needs. Do we choose to invest in nuclear power or commit to major financial investments into making alternative renewable sources more plentiful, reliable, and realistic?

Strategies we are only beginning to explore include industrial cogeneration from other regions in Texas, onsite cogeneration at local buildings similar to the City’s power plant at Dell Children’s Hospital, wind power with compressed air energy storage, and zero-energy buildings. These in addition to our continued aggressive strategy toward capitalizing on capturing efficiencies and institution of demand management measures. The obstacles presented by any of these strategies is more surmountable than those presented by nuclear.

WHAT YOU CAN DO
Install efficiency and PVs in your home and businesses. Demand more GreenChoice opportunities and buy them from Austin Energy when they become available. Get involved with the City’s Resource Management Commission and Electric Utility Commission. Go to one of their Citizen’s Communications and voice your concerns. If you have money to invest, invest in alternative energy to support their development.

Call, email, or write City Council Members and the Mayor if you don’t want to see your tax dollars invested in nuclear power. Encourage them to continue investing in renewable energy strategies and conservation. Attend Citizen Communications meetings by registering at Citizens.Communications@ci.austin.tx.us or by phone at 974-2210 to learn when and where these meetings occur and speak up. These slots usually fill up within half an hour of when registration opens so sign up early. You can contact the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, either Donna Hoffman or Cyrus Reed at 477-1155 if you would like to volunteer to help them with the Nuke Free Texas campaign.

We need to begin making the hard choices we must to be moral. And we must responsibly serve future generations. When does the “me” mentality end? When do we begin to temper our expectation of being completely insulated from the natural cycles of the seasons? When do we begin to understand that even if we can afford to pay for higher utility bills, there are added costs beyond what we immediately experience in our wallets.

Austin can choose to say no to nuclear as an energy answer for Austin. It may not be an easy answer but it is the right answer

In November 1981, Austin voters directed the City Council to sell it’s 16 percent interest in the STNP.  No buyer was found.  
Should our City Council be obligated to honor that vote today and finally find a buyer instead of considering investing more in nuclear power?  

This article was written and published in the Jan/Feb edition of the Austin Sierra Club newsletter.