Explore, enjoy and protect the planet Home    Legislation & Lobbying    Current Campaigns    Outings & Events    Get Involved    Donate    

Posts Tagged ‘nuclear energy’

Playing Defense

Thursday, April 16th, 2009

Spring                Waning Seed Moon

capitol15

“They played hard. They played defense. They respected their competition.   This was a team.”   John Schuhmann on the USA 2008 men’s basketball team winning gold.

===

As the session moves closer to its May 18 adjournment date, more of the legislative committee’s attention gets taken up by necessary defensive work, that is, staying alert to bills that would harm the environment as well as pressing for adoption of bills that would help.

I’ve written more than once about attempts to repeal the nuclear moratorium.  Preventing such legislation from passing is defensive work.  The 2008 USA men’s basketball team recovered the gold medal with good defense.

Competitive arenas like the legislative process and the Olympics demand an offense and a defense.  Always.  Without both, as the USA Olympic team learned, gains from the offense can be lost on defense.

The nuclear moratorium repeal made it into the Senate’s omnibus energy bill on a floor amendment.  It did not make it into the House omnibus energy bill, thanks in part to good defensive work.   A floor amendment will be offered when the House takes up its omnibus energy bill, probably next Monday.  Time for more defense.

Later, the energy bill’s conference committee will be yet another place for defense since the repeal is in the Senate’s bill.  It will have to be reconciled with the House version.

A different sort of defensive work is underway on HF1557.  This is a bill that would make taking legal action much more risky for groups like the Sierra Club.  It is a direct affront to the due process of citizens wishing to challenge the decision of governmental bodies in the court system.  In the Senate Tom Bakk carries this legislation.  This bill would make challenging companies like Polymet in court many times more difficult.

ATV legislation has also moved to defensive work.  There is, for example, a bill to increase the allowable engine size to increase from 800 cc’s to 900 cc’s.

In the meantime, all possible efforts should be made to minimize the risks of any nuclear expansion that might occur.

Monday, March 30th, 2009

Here are two more interesting information sources about nuclear power.  The first is a web report put together by Scientific American:  The Future of Nuclear Power.

The second is a March report by the Carnegie Endowment.  The summary below explains the important thrust of the report, but you can find the report itself at the link.

20090217-nuclear100Nuclear Energy: Rebirth or Resuscitation?
Sharon Squassoni Carnegie Endowment Report, March 2009

After several decades of disappointing growth, nuclear energy seems poised for a comeback. Talk of a “nuclear renaissance” includes perhaps a doubling or tripling of nuclear capacity by 2050, spreading nuclear power to new markets in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and developing new kinds of reactors and fuel-reprocessing techniques. But the reality of nuclear energy’s future is more complicated. Without major changes in government policies and aggressive financial support, nuclear power is actually likely to account for a declining percentage of global electricity generation.

Projections for growth assume that government support will compensate for nuclear power’s market liabilities and that perennial issues such as waste, safety, and proliferation will not be serious hurdles. Before embarking on such a path, policy makers need to achieve greater certainty across a wide range of issues. In the meantime, all possible efforts should be made to minimize the risks of any nuclear expansion that might occur. These include strengthening the rules of nuclear commerce and transparency, deemphasizing the element of national prestige with respect to nuclear energy, undertaking clear-eyed assessments of all available options for generating electricity, and limiting the acquisition of sensitive nuclear technologies like uranium enrichment and spent-fuel reprocessing.

House Energy Committee Says Ban Remains

Friday, March 27th, 2009

Spring       New Moon (Seed Moon)

Expensive.  Polluting.   Dangerous.  Nuclear Power gets a hearing on  March 25th at the State  Capitol.  Will you come and help Us say no?  Again.

A bill to lift Minnesota’s 15 year ban on nuclear power plant construction failed by a 12-9 vote in the House Energy Committee yesterday evening.

The proposal to lift the ban could still be brought to the House floor by amendment, but such action has failed in the past and would likely fail again.  We still need to stay in touch with those who support us to help ensure it does.  The Senate companion has not had a hearing.

The debate can remain focused on clean energy solutions and renewables if this type of bill continues to lack traction.  We helped Wednesday night.

Carbon-Free and Nuclear Free? The Debate

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

Spring              New Moon

covercfnf

…the question can be raised whether mankind benefits from knowing the secrets of Nature, whether it is ready to profit from it, or whether this knowledge will not be harmful for it.

~ Pierre Curie, a French physicist, in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize in Physics, shared with Marie Curie, for their work in radioactive substances, especially radium (1905)

=====

Informational Hearing on the Minnesota Nuclear Moratorium

=====

Was the hearing last night about the ban on construction of new nuclear plants in Minnesota?  It did not feel that way.   Little direct testimony focused on the question of lifting the ban or retaining it.  Even so, it seemed the debate was right on point.  What point?  The real question in the room last night, the real subject of discussion, was the energy future of our country and our state.

Each expert agreed with the need for energy independence.  Each expert agreed that carbon-free energy production was the right way to get to that goal.  Each expert saw expansion of renewable energy as either a viable solution or a viable part of a solution.   Divergence came over how long it would take for renewable energy to reach a critical mass (hmm). Nuclear energy proponents imagined a long time frame for the spread of renewable energy.  Renewable energy experts Arjun Makhijani (see book cover) and Jim Harding made a case for wind, solar, hydro and geo-thermal as ready to scale up now.

The key importance of this hearing lay in its ability to leverage a debate of this kind: a debate not about whether to move toward energy independence, but how, a debate not about whether to achieve carbon free energy production, but how, a debate not about whether renewable energy makes sense, but when.  Taken in this light the ban in Minnesota has had its long term desired effect, not only has it prevented any new nuclear plants,  it has forced the question of energy production into the larger conversation about environmentally sound energy policy.

It was, last night, the proponents of nuclear power who were on the defensive.  They had to explain why the new generation of nuclear plants are safe.  They had to contend with the waste disposal issue and there was no convincing testimony on this intractable problem.

======

If you wish further information, here a few links from last night’s meeting:

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (Arjun Makhijani is the director.  His book, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free, is available as a free download on this site.)

Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding Report (Jim Harding, former director of Power Supply and Forecasting, Seattle City Light)  Jim showed ways that renewables could be used to create base-load energy.  One of the argument pro-nuclear folks use is, for example, the wind doesn’t always blow, meaning renewable energy, while desirable, cannot be counted on to provide predictable energy supply.  Thus, nuclear provides a carbon-free (non coal, non gas, non oil) way of supplying base-load energy.  Harding recounted his experience in Seattle where a combination of hydro and wind do supply base-load energy.

NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute)  Adrian Heymer presented the case for nuclear generation as a staff person for the NEI, the industry trade association.  His basic argument had these components:  1.  Nuclear generation is a mature technology with considerable advances in place in effeciency and safety.  2.  Energy independence requires all options, including nuclear, to be in the mix.  3.  Nuclear is the non-carbon emitting generation method of choice for base-load energy because it is a proven technology and already provides 20% of the nation’s electricity.

Minnesota Legislators: Keep the ban on nuclear power.

Sunday, March 22nd, 2009
Expensive.  Polluting.   Dangerous.  Nuclear Power gets a hearing on  March 25th at the State  Capitol.  Will you come and help Us say no?  Again.

Expensive. Polluting. Dangerous. Nuclear Power gets a hearing on March 25th at the State Capitol. Will you come and help us say no? Again.

Since a 1994 ban on the construction of new nuclear power plants in Minnesota–passed with strong advocacy from the Sierra Club–bills to lift the ban have been common.

Recent political developments have given supporters of nuclear power new motivation; a bill to lift the ban will receive a hearing this Wednesday at 6:30 P.M. We want to remind the legislature why they were smart to pass the ban.

We need you to come to the Capitol this Wednesday and stand with us to show our elected representatives we continue to support the ban and do not want it lifted.

If Sierra Club members show up Wednesday evening, we will encourage members of the legislature to keep the ban. Nuclear waste from Monticello and Prairie Island still sit on site in above ground dry casks. With your help we can prevent additional nuclear waste from piling up in Minnesota.

Come to the Capitol on Wednesday and encourage the legislature to just say no to lifting the ban on nuclear energy.

Nuclear power is expensive at $6 to $12 billion dollars for a new plant. Nuclear power creates toxic and long-lasting waste-at least 100,000 years. Long after the energy is gone, the waste remains.

Meet us at Room 200 in the State Office Building.  See you there!

Will Legislature Repeal the Ban on Nuclear Power?

Tuesday, March 10th, 2009

“The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”
Omar Bradley (American, US General,commanded US ground forces in Normandy invasion in World War II, 1893-1981)

=====

On February 19th I posted this:

Heads up:  Each year since the moratorium on the building of nuclear plants in Minnesota passed in 1994, there have been bills in the legislature to overturn the moratorium.  This year is no different.  It might be useful to review the national Sierra Club stance on nuclear power.

=====

Now we have learned that of the several bills filed to override the ban, one has emerged with some key players behind it: HF1091 (Mahoney) and SF1078 (Carlson).  We have not decided a course of action yet, but here is the information on a March 25th hearing.

=====

Monticello

Monticello

Nuclear Moratorium Repeal

Public testimony will be heard by the newly created Legislative Energy Commission on March 25 (6:30pm in room 200 of the SOB).  Chair Hilty is inviting members of the House Energy Committee to attend that hearing, with the understanding that the committee will formally hear legislation to repeal the moratorium on either March 26 or 27 (in time to meet deadline).

Progress On All 3 Top Priorities

Thursday, February 19th, 2009
A drill atop a barge on Birch Lake, near Babbitt, Minn., last year. The Department of Natural Resources says tests show no unusual levels of materials in the water where prospecting test holes have been drilled.

A drill atop a barge on Birch Lake, near Babbitt, Minn., last year. The Department of Natural Resources says tests show no unusual levels of materials in the water where prospecting test holes have been drilled.

Waning Wild Moon

Mining is like a search-and-destroy mission.
Stewart Udall

————-

Safe Mines
Both the House and Senate (HF916/SF845) bills got introduced today and referred to the environment policy committees in both bodies.
Senator Carlson worked the capitol press room this morning and had some great success.  This means there will probably be additional media coverage related to the bill introductions.
There was a spot on MPR and an article in the Duluth Tribune today.
————
Clean Cars

The Senate bill has been re-referred to the Senate Energy Committee.  Hearing possible as early as next week!

————

Green Jobs

The consensus right now is that there will be several different bills introduced on Green Jobs, probably relating to different funding streams in the Federal Stimulus package.  This large number of bills will become difficult to track, though there is a sense that later 5 or 6 omnibus bills should gather various bills together.

Some kind of Green Jobs legislation will pass.  We need to make sure our guiding principles and priorities help shape the content.

———–

Heads up:  Each year since the moratorium on the building of nuclear plants in Minnesota, passed in 1994, there have been bills in the legislature to overturn the moratorium.  This year is no different.  It might be useful to review the national Sierra Club stance on nuclear power which can be found here.