Last spring, EPA invited comments on a petition by Growth Energy, an ethanol producer trade association, to raise the allowable percent of ethanol blended into gasoline from 10 percent to 15 percent.
Public Citizen was critical of the proposed change. Cars on the road today may not be able to run 15 percent ethanol (E15) without causing serious damage to their cars. Many owners’ manuals specifically admonish drivers not to fuel their cars with blends of ethanol greater than 10 percent. Doing so may void the car’s warranty – leaving consumers with potentially expensive repair bills.
Raising ethanol blending to 15 percent would also have negative impacts on air quality. These blends of ethanol are associated with greater levels of ground-level ozone, which is linked to asthma and other respiratory problems.
In December, EPA decided to defer its decision on Growth Energy’s petition until it could evaluate the results of ongoing study by the Department of Energy. The agency expects to issue a final decision this June.
But it would be inappropriate for the agency to make a final decision without providing an additional opportunity for public comment. The public comment period closed on July 20, 2009, but EPA will make its final decision based on additional information that was not available at the close of the comment period. Public Citizen strongly urges that the EPA provide an additional opportunity for public comment.
The agency must not make a premature decision. The studies cited in Growth Energy’s petition do not make a convincing case that E15 can be introduced into the market without having negative impacts on vehicles on the road today.
On Thursday, the Senate Appropriation Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development will hold a hearing to review the Department of Energy’s FY 2011 budget request (click here to see if your Senator sits on this committee).
This hearing is part of the important process that moves the Obama adminstrations proposed budget through the Congressional channels that have jurisdication over federal spending – allowing our representatives the opportunity to challenge spending request. We are urging senators to challege Obama’s request to increase nuclear loan guarantee program to $54 billion. The request, which would triple the $18.5 billion program, is an affront to those that voted for a clean energy revolution, and positions taxpayers to shoulder another industy bailout.
Please, write your Senator today!
Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, will be fielding questions at the hearing on his agency’s budget request, including the $36 billion bump to the nuclear loan guarantee program.
My question for Secretary Chu: How can a technology that is already propped up by government subsidies – and is prohibitively expensive, inherently dangerous and produces tons of radioactive waste every year – be tapped for more massive government giveaways?
Do you have questions about nuclear power, the nuclear loan guarantee program or how the budget process works? Yes? Then post them here. The decisions that are being made regarding our energy future require more public dialogue.
Our government is determining our spending priorities for next year. Please, weigh in today to ensure a clean energy future.
Allison Fisher is the Energy Organizer for Public Citizen
Welcome to the nuclear industry’s past and present. Case Study: Vermont Yankee. The reactor is leaking radioactive tritium from underground pipes that operator, Louisiana-based Entergy, testified under oath didn’t exist. They do. What’s more the leaks and cover-up come on the heels of a cooling tower collapse in 2007. The state legislatures have also been concerned with Entergy’s ability to properly retire the plant, if it keeps running past its current license. It could cost upwards to $1 billion to decommissioning the plant.
As a result the Vermont Senate voted on Wednesday to block a license extension for the 38-year-old reactor. A vote of no future.
Unfortunately, Vermont Yankee is not the only zombie reactor in the US fleet that is incontinent. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 16 other nuclear power plants currently have radioactive leaks. It is also not the only one that faces financial questions about its ability to decommission end-of-life reactors. A 2009 Biennial Decommissioning Funding Assurance Analysis notes that at least 26 nuclear reactors had projected decommissioning fund shortfalls.
So, what about the future of nuclear power? Despite the Obama Administration’s financial pledge to building new reactors, many hurdles still remain. Nuclear power is a relentless addict. Just one more tax credit, just one more bump to the taxpayer backed loan guarantee, just one more regulatory tweak to allow more radioactive releases, just one more law that removes accountability for the waste produced, just one more extension on the insurance that limits liability in the event of an accident….it is never enough.
And at the end of the day, there is an old leaking reactor and not enough money or adequate disposal to properly put it to rest. Welcome to the future of nuclear power.
Allison Fisher is the Energy Organizer at Public Citizen
President Obama wants to triple the loan program for construction of new nuclear reactors, to $54 billion.
The nuclear loan guarantee program commits taxpayers to not only underwrite risky nuclear reactor projects, but also allows wealthy nuclear utilities to borrow the money from the government’s Federal Financing Bank- funds for this bank come directly from the U.S Treasury. You might want to read that again.
If you are struggling with the absurdity of a program that allows taxpayer dollars to both guarantee and provide direct loans for billion dollar projects that the Congressional Budget Office has found will default 50% of the time, you are not alone.
On February 25th, Public Citizen and several ally organizations are calling on their members to tell Congress to stop the tripling of the nuclear loan program. The proposal to expand this ill-conceived program is not a done deal. So, please join us to stop this boondoggle. You can reach all of your Congress members at 202-224-3121.
Taxpayers are about to take another huge hit. Yesterday, Obama announced a “conditional” loan guarantee for corporate utility Southern Company to build two new nuclear reactors at its Vogtle site in Georgia will once again put taxpayers on the hook when they can least afford it. In addition, it takes us entirely in the wrong direction. Proven efficiency and renewable energy technologies that can benefit millions of households are more cost-effective public investments than financially risky and uncertified nuclear technology.
Initially authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the loan guarantee program was designed to back “innovative” energy technologies such as renewable wind and solar power, as well as new commercial nuclear reactors. While the program has finalized one $525 million loan guarantee for a solar power facility in California, the size and scope of proposed new nuclear reactors – with a price tag of roughly $10 billion per reactor – will overwhelm the public’s bank account. In fact, nuclear power cannot be financially viable without taxpayer support, which includes not only federal loan guarantees but also risk insurance and production tax credits that manipulate the cost of nuclear generated energy. Since 2005, Southern Company has spent nearly $70 million lobbying the federal government, including to ensure these industry-friendly subsidies.
In 2005, the nuclear industry estimated that building a new reactor would cost $2 billion. In the five years since nuclear power was included as a recipient of federal loans, costs have ballooned fourfold. To date, the cost estimates submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy read more…
Yes, the weather outside if frightful, so frightful, in fact, that many Public Citizen employees in and around the Washington DC area find themselves snowed in. But the recent spate of punditry about how the snowiest winter ever in DC is far from delightful. It displays rash ignorance to the actual science of climate change and is full of the worst kinds of logical fallacies.
The first is the easiest to point out: Because it’s cold and snowy, that must mean the earth isn’t warming. First, remember that climate is different from weather. And cold weather doesn’t negate global temperature increases, just as extremely hot weather, of which we’ve had our fair share the past few summers, doesn’t always mean climate change. We need to look at the world as a whole when it comes to temperature, and use long periods of time to smooth out outliers in the data. For instance, globally January was the warmest January on record, and, contrary to what the Utah State Legislature just said, the past decade was the hottest on record according to those rocket scientists over at NASA.
Another problem in the arguments of global warming deniers is that larger storms are predicted exactly by climate change models: all it takes is increased water vapor from warmer climes due to rising temperatures to end up in areas where it’s still below freezing. More vapor + below 32 F = bigger snowstorms. More vapor + over 32 F = bigger rainstorms.
For the fact that it is snowy in DC to mean that climate change isn’t occuring would mean that it should be abnormally snowy and cold in most of the Northern Hemisphere. but that is also demonstrably not true. Counterbalance the massive snowstorms on North America’s East Coast with its dearth of snow on the West Coast– with snow levels so small it threatens the Vancouver Olympics opening this weekend.
But really, you shouldn’t listen to just us on this, anymore than you should listen to those greenhouse gasbags on AM radio or cable news. How about listening to real scientists who deal with climate and weather issues, or at least someone who plays one on TV.
Even Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are getting in on the act. We promise won’t hold it against you if you click over and have a watch.
The Obama administration’s 2011 budget proposes tripling the nuclear loan guarantee program from the $18.5 billion that Congress has already approved to $54.5 billion.
When deciding to expand this program did he confer with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko recently quoted that the best estimate for a new reactor’s price tag is about $10 billion. “Very few utilities have the capability or market capitalization equivalent to that kind of cost,” he said.
Did he speak with the Congressional Budget Office?
The Congressional Budget Office has rated the risk of default on a nuclear loan guarantee to be well above 50 percent. In the event of default, taxpayers are on the hook to bailout the industry.
Did he speak with his base?
According to MoveOn, who ran its first ever dial group on a SOTU speech. Far and away the largest negative spike in the speech was on the dirty energy section where he pushed nukes and oil-drilling.
OR
Did he speak with the nuclear industry?
“Federal loan guarantees are absolutely critical to our proposed new project at Calvert Cliffs in southern Maryland,” said George Vanderheyden, president and CEO, UniStar Nuclear Energy, during the Power Engineering interview. “It’s become very clear to us given what’s going on in the greater economy-not just the U.S., the global economy-that private equity has no interest in investing in this project right now and the financial markets are not able to support a nuclear energy facility at this stage.”
Would you like to speak to Obama about putting your tax dollars at risk for dirty energy? Click here.
Allison Fisher is the Energy Organizer at Public Citizen
President Obama announced this morning he was putting the government on a low carbon diet. Through a series of initiatives, he hopes to decrease energy consumption through efficiency and switching to alternative energy that is less carbon intensive.
As the single largest energy consumer in the U.S. economy, the Federal Government spent more than $24.5 billion on electricity and fuel in 2008 alone. Achieving the Federal GHG pollution reduction target will reduce Federal energy use by the equivalent of 646 trillion BTUs, equal to 205 million barrels of oil, and taking 17 million cars off the road for one year. This is also equivalent to a cumulative total of $8 to $11 billion in avoided energy costs through 2020.
“As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” said President Obama. “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”
Fun fact 1: The US government uses approximately as much energy as the entire country of Austria.
Fun Fact 2: Similar initiatives made by states have netted huge results. The state government of Utah, led by governor Jon Huntsman (who Obama named ambassador to China, you may remember), invested $1.5 million in energy efficiency for government agencies expecting a 10 year payback. They made it back in 3– and now they save over half a million dollars in energy costs a year. Efficiency is an economy of scale– and I’m willing to be the entire government of Utah would not even fill in one of the large federal agency buildings around DC.
Fun Fact 3: Texas has its own “No Regrets” greenhouse gas reduction strategy in accordance with the passage of SB 184, which Public Citizen supported: don’t forget that Sunday is the last day to submit your energy efficiency ideas to the state comptroller’s office. For more info see: www.TexasNoRegrets.org
I think this is a domestic spending freeze everyone can get behind.
President Obama revealed last night during his state of the union speech that he still appears to receive his energy policy talking points from Chicago-based Exelon Corp. In addition to being one of two companies agreeing to pay $1 billion in 2007 to settle allegations of electricity market manipulation, Exelon operates the largest fleet of nuclear power plants in the country.
Obama said, “. . . to create more of these clean-energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives, and that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.”
Well, here’s a news flash: the only reliable jobs that will created by the multi-billion dollar boondoggle that is nuclear power are the bonuses for top nuclear power executives and more staffing for the French government. Why would Obama repeat the type of misinformation blathered by the Nuclear Energy Institute and others when empirical research shows that roof-top solar, wind, geothermal and energy efficiency are THE cost effective, job-creating solutions to climate change.
Further, all the PR in the world does little to change the fact the nuclear is not “clean”. In looking for viable solutions to climate change, let’s not swap one bad fuel for another. Our current nuclear fleet as well as the next generation of reactors that are being proposed are fueled by uranium. Uranium like coal is a finite resources that is mined. To be used to power nuclear reactors it also requires milling and enrichment of uranium for fuel. All of these processes cause widespread environmental contamination along with serious health and safety hazards.
Lastly, nuclear power produces radioactive waste that remains dangerous for several hundred thousand years. Repeat after me: Nuclear Power is not Clean Energy
Tyson Slocum is Director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program
Nissan Leaf charging
The D.C. Auto Show public policy preview day was yesterday, and the message was clearly “change.” A cycle of press conferences highlighted some of the cool, innovative things that automakers will be bringing to the vehicle market – much of it will hit the streets later this year.
And while it was certainly easy to stand on the Advanced Technology Superhighway and see glimpses of the future of cars, it felt like a diversionary tactic. Look at the most advanced technology, but pay no attention to the rest of the auto show stretching behind you with cars, trucks and SUVs that all looked pretty much the same.
While it’s still unclear whether this is an indication of a lasting change for the industry, there was certainly a different feel to the presentations. Ford’s Alan Mulally focused on the Transit Connect – a cargo van option that the company intends to build in an electric version – and the Ford Fusion Hybrid, which he boasted gets 41 miles per gallon in the city, beating out the Toyota Camry Hybrid. It was disappointing to hear him follow this up with a reference to fossil fuel pools that were difficult to reach and extract.
While we wait for a final determination on the standards for fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards, due Mar. 30, 2010, the biggest unanswered questions are about how the agencies will treat these emerging electric cars. Nissan handed out flyers with stats about its all-electric car that boasted there were zero emissions. But the fine print said, “From the car,” reminding us that it’s still an open question how upstream emissions from electricity generation. Public Citizen urged that EPA count upstream emissions from electric vehicles, preferably on a regional basis to reflect different emissions from electric power across the country.
Lena Pons is a transportation policy analyst for Public Citizen.
