- Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

Fwd: Status of fed. loan guarantees for nuclear energy (which could be used to fund mass transit) . . .
by Ann Garrison 22 Dec '07

22 Dec '07

The Transpo List relevance of the forwarded message, below, re nuke power loan guarantees is, again: "How do we power mass transit?" The ban on new nuclear power plant construction in California is still in place for now. Orange County Assemblyman Chuck DeVore has abandoned his attempt to repeal it with a California referendum. But, though I can't find a single word about this in the news, not even anywhere on Pacifica, incluidng FSRN or Democracy now, funding for the next generation of nuclear weapons, the Reliable Replacement (Nuclear) Warhead, went down in Congress sometime within the last week.. The $693 billion War Appropriations Bill for 2008 passed on December 14th, with only three dissenters---Russ Feingold, a Democrat from Wisconsin, Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, and Robert Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia. I don't know how the vote defunding the Reliable Replacement (Nuclear) Warhead plan came down yet, but it has been defunded, at least for now, But, these $25 billion in nuke loan guarantees were stuffed into the Omnibus Appropriations and passed. Congress kicked them out of the "Clean Energy Bill,"which is still full of bio-fuels garbage, cellulose ethanol, and oxymoronic clean coal, but then they, no doubt with Nancy's help, stuck them, $25 billion in nuke power plant loan guarantees, went right back into the Omnibus Appropriations Bill. Since there's no reason to build a nuclear power plant besides creating enough plutonium to build nuclear bombs, we've still gotta keep an eye on this Reliable Replacement (Nuclear) Warhead plan. And on the next strategies to overturn California's ban on new nuclear power plant construction in California. A week or so ago, Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a press release taking a hugely courageous stand by saying he doesn't like nuclear weapons, which was clearly designed to prepare us for their next move. The defunding of the Reliable Replacement Nuclear Warhead has been a virtual non-event in the news. I wouldn't even know about it if someone from the Quaker lobby hadn't sent it to Jason Call, a friend of Cindy Sheehan's who was running for Congress in New Mexico till he threw in the towel last week. So here's the latest I have about the $25 billion, instead of $50 billion, in nuke loan fund guarantees that did make it through Congress, passed on to me by "Beyond Nuclear." Plenty of these guarantees will go to Nuclear Entergy. Nancy P \elosi arranged $1 billion in Katrina Relief funding for Entergy within weeks of the flood, even though Entergy's business was, at the time, booming--no bad pun intended. MSNBC was congratulating them on anticipating the uranium mining boom and their little utility monopoly in the City of New Orleans, is a tiny fraction of their business, which includes the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, the Indian point Nuclear Power Plant and Peace--Annie Begin forwarded message: > From: Kevin Kamps <kevin(a)beyondnuclear.org> > Date: December 21, 2007 8:14:52 AM PST > To: anniegarrison(a)mac.com > Subject: Status of fed. loan guarantees for nuclear energy > Reply-To: kevin(a)beyondnuclear.org > > > Legislative Update from Beyond Nuclear > > Thursday, December 20, 2007 > > Contact: Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear, (301) 270-2209 > > Congress and White House Grant Nuclear Power Industry Federal Loan > Guarantees for New Atomic Reactors > > $20.5 billion risk shifted onto taxpayers, but industry had sought > over $50 billion > > Dear Friends and Supporters of Beyond Nuclear, > > Many of you have actively opposed nuclear loan guarantees, by > signing petitions, phoning, faxing, emailing, writing, and even > meeting with congressional leaders, as well as your own Members of > Congress, or their staff. You’ve also written letters to the editor > and op/eds. For all your good work, we thank you from the bottom of > our hearts. And we feel it important to give you the latest on the > status of the federal loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors. > > We succeeded, over the course of several months, in blocking > nuclear loan guarantees from being included in the energy bill > (signed into law just yesterday, by the way). We also blocked > nuclear loan guarantees from being attached to the farm bill. But, > unfortunately, we failed to prevent their being attached to the > appropriations bill, despite our best efforts. > > As many of you may have already learned, both the U.S. House of > Representatives and the U.S. Senate passed an Omnibus > Appropriations Bill this week that did contain nuclear loan > guarantees: $18.5 billion for new nuclear reactors, and an > additional $2 billion for new uranium enrichment. This $20.5 > billion in nuclear loan guarantees is for both Fiscal Year 2008 and > Fiscal Year 2009, whereas the nuclear industry had wanted over $50 > billion in nuclear loan guarantees over that time period. In that > sense, our hard work has helped block around $30 billion in nuclear > loan guarantees from being approved – although $20.5 billion is > certainly bad enough. > > In addition, nuclear loan guarantee proponents, such as U.S. > Senator Pete Domenici (Republican from New Mexico) will almost > certainly come back, perhaps in early 2008, with supplemental > appropriations legislation seeking yet more nuclear loan guarantees > for Fiscal Year 2009. Thus we must remain vigilant, and even re- > double our efforts, for this fight will go on. > > In addition to the $20.5 billion in loan guarantees for the nuclear > energy industry, another $8 billion was approved for coal projects, > and $10 billion for renewables and efficiency (although it appears > that controversial, large-scale electricity transmission projects > may have been lumped in with “renewables and efficiency,” > transmission lines that would be needed if giant new atomic > reactors are to be added to the grid). Thus, outrageously, nuclear > loan guarantees account for more than half the energy loan > guarantees. When nuclear power and coal are taken together, the > ratio of dirty and dangerous energy projects to clean and safe > energy projects is three to one! So much for an energy loan > guarantee program that was supposed to support “innovative and > clean” projects to address the climate crisis! So much for a > Democratic Congress supposedly devoted to clean energy! > > The way the nuclear loan guarantees will work – according to rules > set by the Bush administration’s Office of Management and Budget, > as well as the Department of Energy -- is this: up to 80% of the > cost of a new reactor project will be covered by nuclear loan > guarantees, backed by the U.S. Treasury (that is, taxpayers). If a > new reactor would cost $6 billion (a conservative estimate, for the > news media recently reported that a single reactor could cost $9 > billion), then 80% of that cost ($4.8 billion) could be covered by > federal loan guarantees. Thus, about three to four new reactors > could get off the ground thanks to $18.5 billion in nuclear loan > guarantees (the other $2 billion is devoted to new uranium > enrichment facilities). Wall Street investment firms and banks will > now lend money to nuclear utilities pursuing new reactors at a much > lower interest rate, because of the presence of the federal loan > guarantees. If nuclear utilities default on their loan repayments > to the lenders, then U.S. taxpayers will be left holding the bag. > This “latent subsidy” is to an industry that has already enjoyed > lavish subsidies at the expense of U.S. taxpayers and ratepayers > for the past fifty years. These have amounted to hundreds of > billions of dollars in research and development support, liability > coverage in the event of catastrophic radiation releases, high- > level radioactive waste management costs, “stranded cost” transfer > of reactor construction debts from highly profitable nuclear > utilities onto ratepayers’ electricity bills in some “deregulated” > states, and much more. > > George W. Bush has not yet signed the omnibus appropriations bill > (including nuclear loan guarantees) into law, but he will do so > soon. Bush gave an “end of year” press conference today, declaring > victory on the omnibus appropriations bill (such as getting war > funding out of Congress for Iraq, for example). Responding to a > question about why the Bush Environmental Protection Agency had > just blocked states, such as California, from setting stronger > standards than the federal government on automobile greenhouse gas > emissions, Bush said those concerned about global warming should be > big supporters of nuclear power. Bush erroneously stated that > nuclear power doesn't release one unit of greenhouse gas (he’s > ignoring the significant greenhouse gas emissions from the nuclear > fuel chain). He congratulated Congress on passing incentives to > build new reactors. Bush was referring to the nuclear loan > guarantees in the omnibus appropriations bill, and perhaps also to > nuclear subsidies contained in the energy bill he signed into law > just yesterday – including international expansion of the Price > Anderson nuclear liability act, which holds U.S. taxpayers > financially responsible for the vast majority of monetary damages > caused by a catastrophic atomic accident, potentially into the > hundreds of billions of dollars. > > Although $20.5 billion in nuclear loan guarantees have been > approved, it is not entirely clear how easy it will be for the U.S. > Department of Energy (DOE) to disburse those loan guarantees. U.S. > Representative David Obey (Democrat from Wisconsin), chairman of > the House Appropriations Committee, inserted a requirement that 45 > days before energy loan guarantees are disbursed, DOE must present > its plan to both House and Senate appropriators. Whether or not the > appropriations committees’ approval is required before disbursement > is less clear. Also, the amount of loan guarantees approved for > various energy sectors is included only in the omnibus > appropriations act’s report language, but not in its statutory > language. This calls into question how much force of law those loan > guarantee amounts actually carry. But an alternative explanation > for the loan guarantee amounts being only in report language is > that it’s an end run around the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, > which requires that loan guarantees be “scored” by the > Congressional Budget Office at 1% of their dollar amount value. > That means, in the case of $20.5 billion in nuclear loan guarantees > (also known as “funny money”) that congressional appropriators > would have to come up with 1% of that amount (or $205 million) in > actual, real-world funding. And given record federal deficits and > tight budgets, there isn’t $205 million just lying around at the > appropriations committees. In short, such wrinkles and complexities > could serve as monkey wrenches in the gears of the nuclear loan > guarantee program, even opening up possibilities for lawsuits. > > What can we do now? Everyone should call or write their U.S. > Representative and two U.S. Senators to thank or criticize them, > depending upon whether they voted against these nuclear loan > guarantees or for them. Sample letters of thanks or criticism to > Members of Congress are pasted in below. To see how your House > Member voted, go to http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1171.xml > and find out. “Yeas” voted wrong (in favor of nuclear loan > guarantees), while “Nays” voted right (against nuclear loan > guarantees). To see how your two U.S. Senators voted, go to http:// > www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/ > roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00441 and find > out. Granted, the omnibus appropriations bill contained 11 separate > appropriations bills rolled into one (including the energy and > water appropriations bill, containing the nuclear loan guarantees), > so Members may have decided their yea or nay vote based on a > variety of variables in addition to the nuclear loan guarantee > issue. But these roll call votes are the only official House and > Senate floor votes for or against the nuclear loan guarantees that > can be cited (the additional House vote on the omnibus > appropriations bill just yesterday had to do with war funding for > Iraq). > > Another action you can take is to write a letter to the editor, or > op/ed, to your local paper, condemning the enactment of nuclear > loan guarantees. Again, samples are below which you can use or adapt. > > Taking these further actions, on top of all the good work we’ve > already done, is important. We must continue to educate and > pressure Members of Congress, the news media, and the public about > nuclear loan guarantees, for the nuclear industry and its friends > in Congress will be back very soon seeking yet more. > > Sincerely, > > Kevin Kamps > Radioactive Waste Watchdog > Beyond Nuclear > > > LETTERS OF THANKS OR CRITICISM TO CONGRESS: > > Sample thank you letter to Congress for voting against nuclear loan > guarantees > > Dear U.S. Representative/Senator ____________, > > Thank you for voting against the omnibus appropriations bill this > week. It contained an objectionable nuclear loan guarantee provision. > > Federal loan guarantees for new atomic reactors just approved in > the congressional omnibus appropriations bill are a major financial > risk to taxpayers. The nuclear industry has obtained $20.5 billion > in guarantees, and will likely lobby for more in the near future. > > The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has predicted nuclear > utilities will default on new reactor loan repayments more than 50% > of the time, leaving taxpayers holding the bag. CBO also reports > the U.S. Energy Dept. will likely underestimate the subsidy fee it > charges borrowers up front, meaning taxpayers could end up on the > hook for tens of billions of dollars in liability when new reactor > loans inevitably go bad. > > What makes this astronomical nuclear giveaway even more outrageous > is that this industry is 50 years old, and has already been very > heavily subsidized – to the tune of hundreds of billions of > taxpayer and ratepayer dollars. > > The climate crisis demands energy subsidies go to the cleanest, > safest, least expensive, and quickest options available. Energy > efficiency is seven times more cost effective at reducing > greenhouse gas emissions than nuclear power. Congress should > subsidize efficiency and renewables like wind and solar, but stop > co-signing the American taxpayer onto risky nuclear loans. > > In addition to nuclear power’s financial risks, there are also: the > safety and security risks; routine intentional releases of > radioactivity into the environment, as well as accidental leaks > that harm human health and ecosystems; the 65-year-high and still > growing mountain of radioactive waste that has no safe, sound > solution; and the risk of nuclear weapons and “dirty > bomb” (radiological weapons) proliferation that goes hand in hand > with nuclear power’s expansion. > > Thanks again for opposing the omnibus appropriations bill and the > outrageous nuclear loan guarantees it contains. I strongly urge you > to oppose any further nuclear loan guarantees in the future. > > Sincerely, > > > Sample letter of criticism to Congress for voting in favor of > nuclear loan guarantees > > Dear U.S. Representative/Senator ____________, > > I am writing to express my displeasure at your vote in favor of the > omnibus appropriations bill this week, for it contained an > objectionable nuclear loan guarantee provision. > > Federal loan guarantees for new atomic reactors just approved in > the congressional omnibus appropriations bill are a major financial > risk to taxpayers. The nuclear industry has obtained $20.5 billion > in guarantees, and will likely lobby for more in the near future. > > The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has predicted nuclear > utilities will default on new reactor loan repayments more than 50% > of the time, leaving taxpayers holding the bag. CBO also reports > the U.S. Energy Dept. will likely underestimate the subsidy fee it > charges borrowers up front, meaning taxpayers could end up on the > hook for tens of billions of dollars in liability when new reactor > loans inevitably go bad. > > What makes this astronomical nuclear giveaway even more outrageous > is that this industry is 50 years old, and has already been very > heavily subsidized – to the tune of hundreds of billions of > taxpayer and ratepayer dollars. > > The climate crisis demands energy subsidies go to the cleanest, > safest, least expensive, and quickest options available. Energy > efficiency is seven times more cost effective at reducing > greenhouse gas emissions than nuclear power. Congress should > subsidize efficiency and renewables like wind and solar, but stop > co-signing the American taxpayer onto risky nuclear loans. > > In addition to nuclear power’s financial risks, there are also: the > safety and security risks; routine intentional releases of > radioactivity into the environment, as well as accidental leaks > that harm human health and ecosystems; the 65-year-high and still > growing mountain of radioactive waste that has no safe, sound > solution; and the risk of nuclear weapons and “dirty > bomb” (radiological weapons) proliferation that goes hand in hand > with nuclear power’s expansion. > > Again, the nuclear loan guarantees contained in the omnibus > appropriations bill are an outrage, and I am displeased that you > voted in favor of them. I strongly urge you to oppose any further > nuclear loan guarantees in the future. > > Sincerely, > > >

1 0

meeting tonight?
by susan vaughan 20 Dec '07

20 Dec '07

Hey everybody, It does not seem like we ever consensed on when we would meet. I prefer to meet next week, any night, but think our regular meeting time would be Thurs the 27, right? I prefer this as I have not been able to find Prop 91 anywhere, and want to read it ahead of time. Also, I'm exhausted from our great gig last night. Just got up. Sue --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

3 3

Meetings December?
by Eric Brooks 18 Dec '07

18 Dec '07

Do we want to try to have a Transpo and/or Sustainability meeting this month? I have uncertain travel plans and might be out of town. peace Eric

4 7

Re "transpo" to and from New Orleans. . . on recycled grease, if anyone wants to join me. .
by Ann Garrison 17 Dec '07

17 Dec '07

I mean to include this SAVE OUR HOMES brass band march You Tube, shot outside St. Ben's Projects, which a friend of mine just sent me from New Orleans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GPjNhVUzqk

1 0

Anyone going to New Orleans?
by Ann Garrison 17 Dec '07

17 Dec '07

I'm going to spend Christmas in New Orleans to help fight the housing demolitions. If I can get there in time for the Thursday New Orleans City Council meeting, I intend to sign up to apologize for what our representative Nancy Pelosi has done to the City of New Orleans. C.C. Campbell-Rock of New Orleans encouraged me to sign up to speak, even though I hesitated, being an outsider, but then i remembered everything I know about what Nancy has done to New Orleans and realized I had plenty to apologize for, as an outsider from here, and more than a billion to mention, a biliion that went to the Entergy Corporation, a.k.a., Nuclear Entergy, as Hurricane Katrina Relief, within weeks of the flood. That's a billion plus that could have been spent rebuilding instead of demoliting Black public housing in New Orleans. And what did Nancy say when Services Corporation International got the body recovery contract in New Orleans. (Oh, my.) I wrote about all this a year and a half ago in the Sf Bay View, http://www.sfbayview.com/20060519313/News/New_Orleans/ In_the_war_of_the_super- rich_on_the_rest_of_us_..._in_San_Francisco_as_in_New_Orleans.html. Is anyone else willing or able to spend Christmas in New Orleans? I plan to go for just a it less than a week and drive back in a VW Beetle which runs on recycled grease. I had to leave it there a long time ago because people kept swiping it, breaking the windows, or running into it. Last time a friend of mine went down there planning to pick it up and drive it back, but that time a big rig ran into it in the Lower Ninth Ward. A friend of mine there has been watching over it since the las time it got out of a shop and she says it's ready to get out of there. Having a car in New Orleans is nuts anyway because the place is totally flat, except for the Lower Ninth, which dips even further below sea level than most of the place, more or less in the form of a soup bowl. People's Hurricane Relief says not to come planning to risk arrest without an affinity group, so I may just go and report back unless I sense an affinity group I can join emerging from somewhere---maybe even New Mexico---but at this point I have only one friend willing to go. (And put up with me.) Peace---Annie

1 0

Let's stop transpo-ing the Blue Angels out here, and transpo-ing recruits from here to Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa. . . .
by Ann Garrison 15 Dec '07

15 Dec '07

This is to ask anyone who reads this to please call their Supe--- whoever their Supe is, except of course Chris, whose lead I'm following here---and ask them to sign the "Declaration of Policy" below, so that Richard Knee, my only other collaborator on this at this point, and I, don't have to harass 7200 San Franciscans into signing petitions to get this on the ballot. (Actually,Peter Gabel is so pissed off by the Blue Angels as well that even he offered to collect signatures if we have to, but I'd much rather find less stressful ways to get this initiative on the ballot and more creative ways, then, to campaign to get it passed. The other advantage, it seems,of an initiative that four Supes sign to get on the ballot is that they'll then have to hold public hearings, during which we can really make the point that this Blue Angels Air Show is really all about military recruitment for the Wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and now Africa, in the form of Africom, http://www.africom.mil/, the plan to build a U.S. military base in every African nation except Egypt. Here's my draft "Declaration of Policy," in case anyone's still with me on this; I've been following Chris Daly's lead all along here, and Cindy Sheehan is with us as well. She's going to try to make the Board meeting next week. POINT: Please call your Supe, any Supe but Chris, (since Chris suggested this), and urge them to sign to get ithis on the ballot. Ross and Tom voted to stop the Blue Angels at the full Board, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're gonna sign. I've asked both without getting responses yet, and Tom's aide wasn't sure he would, because, it seems Tom thinks the ballot initiative process is overused. Someone sent me a # and e-address for a particular aide in Ross's office but he hasn't responded yet either. I'm not going to go knocking on doors till next week, in hopes that more people will call and urge their own Supes to sign this "Declaration of Policy" to get it on the ballot: Declaration of Policy The voters of San Francisco declare the Blue Angels Air Shows and all other military demonstration shows, including the Canadian SnowBirds and the U.S. Army's Golden Knights Parachute Team, unwelcome in and around the City and County of San Francisco. These military demonstration teams come here every year to recruit our struggling immigrant and inner city youth into the U.S. Armed Services, to fight imperial wars for the natural resources of poor nations mischaracterized as "rogue states" because they have abundant natural resources, including uranium, but no nuclear weapons. These resource wars that the military demonstration shows recruit for are currently mischaracterized as the "Global War on Terrorism." The voters of San Francisco declare that our hard-earned federal and municipal taxes, and the energies of all our young people, shall be devoted, instead, to sane and constructive activity like education, environmental remediation, and other positive forms of collective self-care. The voters of San Francisco also declare that our taxes and the energies of our youth should circumvent the need for these annual military recruitment demonstrations by building a truly renewable energy infrastructure---solar, tidal, and wind. A truly renewable energy infrastructure will not only keep all our utility bills under control, by eliminating fuel costs, but also end the wars for dirty energy fuels, and circumvent the next resource war, for water, which will surely come if the dirty energy wars which so damage and deplete the world's water resources, continue. ----Ann Garrison anniegarrison(a)mac.com (415) 285-7259 (415) 786-6839 "El-Baradei has as much intention of stopping proliferation as George Bush has of stopping the drug trade." --Craig Reishus, Nuclear Free Future Awards, http://www.nuclear- free.com/english/frames7.htm ---Ann Garrison anniegarrison(a)mac.com (415) 285-7259 (415) 786-6839 "El-Baradei has as much intention of stopping proliferation as George Bush has of stopping the drug trade." --Craig Reishus, Nuclear Free Future Awards, http://www.nuclear- free.com/english/frames7.htm

1 0

Fwd: Nuke Loan Guarantees--how could it get worse! Act Now!
by Ann Garrison 13 Dec '07

13 Dec '07

Relevance, again, to Transpo: how will we power mass transit, among other things? Maybe someone will care to forward this to Actives. Begin forwarded message: > From: Michael Mariotte <nirsnet(a)nirs.org> > Date: December 13, 2007 2:27:56 PM PST > To: anniegarrison(a)mac.com > Subject: Nuke Loan Guarantees--how could it get worse! Act Now! > > Nuclear Loan Guarantees: How Could It Get Worse? > > We are hearing that Senate-House appropriators are near agreement > on a loan guarantee package that looks like this: > > $25 billion for nukes > $10 billion for renewables > $10 billion for coal to liquids > $2 billion for uranium enrichment > $2 billion for coal to gas > > While the $10 billion for renewables might be welcome, the package > as a whole reflects misplaced priorities and a lost opportunity to > address the climate crisis. Indeed, such an energy policy would > make things far worse and make it much harder to reduce carbon > emissions. > > Throwing taxpayer money at wealthy utilities is not the way toward > a sane, sustainable energy future. > > *Please call your Senators and Representative today! No loan > guarantees for nuclear power (nor coal!)! Tell them to reject the > entire omnibus appropriations bill if it includes such loan > guarantees. > > Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 > > *If you’ve already called them this week, or can make an additional > call, then call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and tell him to > stand up to the polluting energy interests and not to allow such a > parting gift to retiring Senator Pete Domenici and the outgoing > Bush Administration. Senator Reid’s office is 202-224-3542. > > If everyone receiving this message makes these calls, we can win > this battle! (but please forward widely—and quickly—anyway)! And > please act now. > > Thanks for everything you do. > > Michael Mariotte > Nuclear Information and Resource Service > nirsnet(a)nirs.org; www.nirs.org > 301-270-6477 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------------------------------------- > Please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to NIRS this > holiday season. Your support enables us to do the outreach and > mobilization needed to stop a nuclear power resurgence and build a > sustainable, carbon-free, nuclear-free energy future. You can do so > safely on our secure website at: https://secure.campagne-online.com/ > registrant/donate.aspx?EventID=2927&LangPref=en-CA > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > This is the NIRS E-Mail Alert list. You are on this list because > you signed up on our website, at a NIRS table at a concert, on a > petition, or directly to NIRS. Your name and address are never > sold, rented, or traded with anyone for any reason. > > For address changes or to unsubscribe, just send an e-mail to > nirsnet(a)nirs.org. If you have friends or colleagues who would like > to be on this list, have them send a note to nirsnet(a)nirs.org

1 0

Fwd: $25 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power are already back, this time in an Omnibus Appropriations Bill
by Ann Garrison 11 Dec '07

11 Dec '07

Forgot to hit "Reply All." I'd love to believe Eric's right about this, but is he? Begin forwarded message: > From: Ann Garrison <anniegarrison(a)mac.com> > Date: December 10, 2007 5:00:06 PM PST > To: Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)aim.com> > Subject: Re: [Transpo] $25 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear > power are already back, this time in an Omnibus Appropriations Bill > > We do? I know we want to, but are you trying to tell me that the > infrastructure > mandated by our Community Choice Renewable Energy legislation has > already > been built? Do you in fact know what's powering BART and MUNI? If > this is true, > that it's all powered with solar, tidal, and wind, NOW, I'd really > like to know that. > > That would be just lovely. > > On Dec 10, 2007, at 4:45 PM, Eric Brooks wrote: > >> We power transit with solar, wind, wave, tidal, etc. >> >> Ann Garrison wrote: >>> Last Friday I got a message from the Nuclear Information >>> Research Service heaping praise on Nancy Pelosi >>> for kicking the nuke power loan guarantees out of the Clean >>> Energy Bill, which is still full of cellulose ethanol >>> garbage to starve even more of the world. >>> >>> And, now the nuke power loan guarantees are right back, this time >>> in this Omnibus Appropriations Bill, and >>> I highly suspect that Nancy's responsible. So, here's NIRS's >>> latest urgent plea. >>> >>> Relevance to Transpo? How do we power mass transit? With >>> nuclear power? >>> >>> URGENT! >>> >>> Congress may vote on appropriations/nuclear loan guarantees >>> Tuesday night! >>> >>> ACT NOW! Stop $25 billion in nuclear loan guarantees! >>> >>> Friends, >>> >>> We are hearing today that there is behind-the-scenes maneuvering >>> in the House and Senate appropriations committees to approve a >>> giant loan guarantee package in the omnibus appropriations bill, >>> and that this bill could reach the House floor as early as >>> Tuesday night. The Senate would then vote on the bill as early >>> as Wednesday. According to some reports, the appropriators are >>> considering as much as $45 Billion in loan guarantees for energy >>> projects, with $25 Billion of that being allocated for new >>> nuclear reactors. >>> >>> This is the worst type of legislation. Not only would it pay for >>> the Iraq war in exchange for a few billion dollars in domestic >>> projects, but it is being done almost covertly, in a mammoth >>> spending bill that virtually no Congressmember would actually >>> have the chance to read before voting. We need to let Congress >>> know this type of spending bill, with these types of priorities, >>> is simply unacceptable. >>> >>> Your actions kept the nuclear loan guarantees out of the House >>> energy bill. Now we all need to act again, louder and stronger >>> than ever. >>> >>> *We have moved up the deadline for signing on to the letter >>> below (which has more than 65 organizational signers so far). If >>> your organization has not yet signed, please do so by 11 am >>> Eastern time tomorrow, Tuesday, December 11. We intend to put >>> out a press release on it tomorrow afternoon. >>> >>> To sign, please send your name, organization, city and state to >>> nirsnet(a)nirs.org. >>> >>> *And everyone: please call both of your Senators and your House >>> representative on Tuesday—Republican, Democrat, Independent. >>> Every member needs to hear the message: NO TAXPAYER LOAN >>> GUARANTEES FOR NEW NUCLEAR REACTORS. Period. >>> >>> Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 >>> >>> Thank you for all you do! >>> >>> Michael Mariotte >>> Executive Director >>> Nuclear Information and Resource Service >>> nirsnet(a)nirs.org; 301-270-6477 >>> >>> >>> >>> Text of the Sign-on Letter >>> >>> December 11, 2007 >>> >>> Dear Congressmember: >>> >>> We urge you to keep costly loan guarantees for nuclear power out >>> of the Energy and Water and omnibus appropriations bills. >>> >>> The Administration proposed $9 billion for all energy loan >>> guarantees and the House approved $7 billion for all energy loan >>> guarantees in FY 2008. Yet, the media has reported that the >>> Energy and Water Appropriations conferees are considering $25 >>> billion in loan guarantees exclusively to the nuclear industry. >>> >>> There has been little to no Congressional debate on this large >>> sum of money. There has also been no discussion or hearings on >>> the implications for other energy projects, if the $25 billion >>> nuclear loan guarantee package is passed. $25 billion is more >>> than the entire annual budget for the Department of Energy. >>> Doesn’t Congress have the obligation to debate the ramifications >>> of risking $25 billion? >>> >>> Moreover, there is no hurry for a nuclear loan guarantee package: >>> no nuclear utilities will be in a position in 2008 to use any >>> federal funds for new reactor construction. Only four utilities >>> so far have submitted applications for new reactors and the NRC >>> licensing process is expected to take a minimum of 30 months for >>> complete applications referencing certified standardized reactor >>> designs. But none of the applications has been certified as >>> complete by the NRC (Constellation Energy so far is missing half >>> its application; NRG Energy’s application has deficiencies the >>> NRC projects will take a year to correct), and none of the >>> applications references a certified standardized reactor design >>> (while the NRC Energy application references a standardized >>> design, NRG is seeking 16 changes from the design as certified; >>> TVA is seeking major changes from its standardized design; while >>> Constellation and Dominion Resources are both seeking licensing >>> of reactor designs that have not yet gone through the >>> certification process). It will be at least 2011, and probably >>> later, before any utility can begin reactor construction. >>> >>> The cost of new atomic reactors, and thus the usefulness of loan >>> guarantees, is an issue that Congress has not yet fully >>> explored. Cost estimates by nuclear utilities for new reactors >>> have essentially doubled over the past two years, and are far >>> above the $1,500-$2,000/ kilowatt price the Nuclear Energy >>> Institute said in 2005 was necessary to make nuclear power >>> economically competitive. In October 2007, Moody’s Investor >>> Service estimated that new reactors will cost far more than the >>> nuclear utilities have estimated. Indeed, Moody’s estimates that >>> new U.S. reactors will cost from $5,000 to $6,000 per kilowatt. >>> If Moody’s is correct, a 1,600 MW reactor such as that proposed >>> by Constellation for the Calvert Cliffs, Maryland site would >>> cost from $8 to nearly $10 billion. Risking taxpayer funds on a >>> project with such dubious cost-effectiveness would be unwise— >>> especially years before the funds could actually be used. A full >>> Congressional examination of nuclear construction costs should >>> be undertaken before large amounts of taxpayer funds are risked. >>> >>> The Energy Department's Office of Inspector General warned in >>> September that even $9 billion in loan guarantees proposed by >>> the Department for FY 2008 "will result in significant risk to >>> the American taxpayer." What would $25 billion mean to the >>> American taxpayer, especially given the skyrocketing cost >>> estimates for new nuclear reactors? >>> >>> Not only is the nuclear industry not ready to use loan >>> guarantees, it is far from clear that the Department of Energy >>> is yet capable of managing such an enormous program. By way of >>> comparison, the U.S. Export-Import Bank—staffed with recognized >>> experts in banking and lending--reported guaranteeing 736 loans >>> valued at $8.2 billion in FY 2006. The Department of Energy does >>> not have a similar expertise. >>> >>> We urge you to accept this summer’s decision of the House >>> Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, which >>> determined that no loan guarantee funding should go for nuclear >>> power projects in FY 2008. >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ---- -------------- >>> This is the NIRS E-Mail Alert list. You are on this list because >>> you signed up on our website, at a NIRS table at a concert, on >>> a petition, or directly to NIRS. Your name and address are never >>> sold, rented, or traded with anyone for any reason. >>> >>> For address changes or to unsubscribe, just send an e-mail to >>> nirsnet(a)nirs.org. If you have friends or colleagues who would >>> like to be on this list, have them send a note to nirsnet(a)nirs.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---Ann Garrison >>> >>> anniegarrison(a)mac.com >>> (415) 285-7259 >>> (415) 786-6839 >>> "El-Baradei has as much intention of stopping proliferation as >>> George Bush has of stopping the drug trade." >>> --Craig Reishus, Nuclear Free Future Awards, http://www.nuclear- >>> free.com/english/frames7.htm >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Transpo mailing list >>> Transpo(a)sfgreens.org >>> https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo >>> >

2 3

Parcel E in the
by Ann Garrison 11 Dec '07

11 Dec '07

Please excuse the mangled paragraph in my earlier message that should have said: I suggested a solar farm instead of a stadium on Parcel E in the shipyard to Mary Ratcliff, but she said they just want the Navy to haul all the hugely toxic, and radioactive dirt on Parcel E off someplace else, thus enlarging the Bay. Again, relation to Transpo is: How do we power mass transit? (I understand how they feel about it, but I didn't know how to respond 'cause I sure as hell wasn't gonna say take it to Yucca Mt. I don't have the answer to what to do with Parcel E except that the stadium idea may be the dumbest idea ever extruded from City Hall.) ---A. ---Ann Garrison anniegarrison(a)mac.com (415) 285-7259 (415) 786-6839 "El-Baradei has as much intention of stopping proliferation as George Bush has of stopping the drug trade." --Craig Reishus, Nuclear Free Future Awards, http://www.nuclear- free.com/english/frames7.htm

1 0

$25 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power are already back, this time in an Omnibus Appropriations Bill
by Ann Garrison 11 Dec '07

11 Dec '07

Last Friday I got a message from the Nuclear Information Research Service heaping praise on Nancy Pelosi for kicking the nuke power loan guarantees out of the Clean Energy Bill, which is still full of cellulose ethanol garbage to starve even more of the world. And, now the nuke power loan guarantees are right back, this time in this Omnibus Appropriations Bill, and I highly suspect that Nancy's responsible. So, here's NIRS's latest urgent plea. Relevance to Transpo? How do we power mass transit? With nuclear power? URGENT! Congress may vote on appropriations/nuclear loan guarantees Tuesday night! ACT NOW! Stop $25 billion in nuclear loan guarantees! Friends, We are hearing today that there is behind-the-scenes maneuvering in the House and Senate appropriations committees to approve a giant loan guarantee package in the omnibus appropriations bill, and that this bill could reach the House floor as early as Tuesday night. The Senate would then vote on the bill as early as Wednesday. According to some reports, the appropriators are considering as much as $45 Billion in loan guarantees for energy projects, with $25 Billion of that being allocated for new nuclear reactors. This is the worst type of legislation. Not only would it pay for the Iraq war in exchange for a few billion dollars in domestic projects, but it is being done almost covertly, in a mammoth spending bill that virtually no Congressmember would actually have the chance to read before voting. We need to let Congress know this type of spending bill, with these types of priorities, is simply unacceptable. Your actions kept the nuclear loan guarantees out of the House energy bill. Now we all need to act again, louder and stronger than ever. *We have moved up the deadline for signing on to the letter below (which has more than 65 organizational signers so far). If your organization has not yet signed, please do so by 11 am Eastern time tomorrow, Tuesday, December 11. We intend to put out a press release on it tomorrow afternoon. To sign, please send your name, organization, city and state to nirsnet(a)nirs.org. *And everyone: please call both of your Senators and your House representative on Tuesday—Republican, Democrat, Independent. Every member needs to hear the message: NO TAXPAYER LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NEW NUCLEAR REACTORS. Period. Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 Thank you for all you do! Michael Mariotte Executive Director Nuclear Information and Resource Service nirsnet(a)nirs.org; 301-270-6477 Text of the Sign-on Letter December 11, 2007 Dear Congressmember: We urge you to keep costly loan guarantees for nuclear power out of the Energy and Water and omnibus appropriations bills. The Administration proposed $9 billion for all energy loan guarantees and the House approved $7 billion for all energy loan guarantees in FY 2008. Yet, the media has reported that the Energy and Water Appropriations conferees are considering $25 billion in loan guarantees exclusively to the nuclear industry. There has been little to no Congressional debate on this large sum of money. There has also been no discussion or hearings on the implications for other energy projects, if the $25 billion nuclear loan guarantee package is passed. $25 billion is more than the entire annual budget for the Department of Energy. Doesn’t Congress have the obligation to debate the ramifications of risking $25 billion? Moreover, there is no hurry for a nuclear loan guarantee package: no nuclear utilities will be in a position in 2008 to use any federal funds for new reactor construction. Only four utilities so far have submitted applications for new reactors and the NRC licensing process is expected to take a minimum of 30 months for complete applications referencing certified standardized reactor designs. But none of the applications has been certified as complete by the NRC (Constellation Energy so far is missing half its application; NRG Energy’s application has deficiencies the NRC projects will take a year to correct), and none of the applications references a certified standardized reactor design (while the NRC Energy application references a standardized design, NRG is seeking 16 changes from the design as certified; TVA is seeking major changes from its standardized design; while Constellation and Dominion Resources are both seeking licensing of reactor designs that have not yet gone through the certification process). It will be at least 2011, and probably later, before any utility can begin reactor construction. The cost of new atomic reactors, and thus the usefulness of loan guarantees, is an issue that Congress has not yet fully explored. Cost estimates by nuclear utilities for new reactors have essentially doubled over the past two years, and are far above the $1,500-$2,000/ kilowatt price the Nuclear Energy Institute said in 2005 was necessary to make nuclear power economically competitive. In October 2007, Moody’s Investor Service estimated that new reactors will cost far more than the nuclear utilities have estimated. Indeed, Moody’s estimates that new U.S. reactors will cost from $5,000 to $6,000 per kilowatt. If Moody’s is correct, a 1,600 MW reactor such as that proposed by Constellation for the Calvert Cliffs, Maryland site would cost from $8 to nearly $10 billion. Risking taxpayer funds on a project with such dubious cost-effectiveness would be unwise— especially years before the funds could actually be used. A full Congressional examination of nuclear construction costs should be undertaken before large amounts of taxpayer funds are risked. The Energy Department's Office of Inspector General warned in September that even $9 billion in loan guarantees proposed by the Department for FY 2008 "will result in significant risk to the American taxpayer." What would $25 billion mean to the American taxpayer, especially given the skyrocketing cost estimates for new nuclear reactors? Not only is the nuclear industry not ready to use loan guarantees, it is far from clear that the Department of Energy is yet capable of managing such an enormous program. By way of comparison, the U.S. Export-Import Bank—staffed with recognized experts in banking and lending--reported guaranteeing 736 loans valued at $8.2 billion in FY 2006. The Department of Energy does not have a similar expertise. We urge you to accept this summer’s decision of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, which determined that no loan guarantee funding should go for nuclear power projects in FY 2008. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- This is the NIRS E-Mail Alert list. You are on this list because you signed up on our website, at a NIRS table at a concert, on a petition, or directly to NIRS. Your name and address are never sold, rented, or traded with anyone for any reason. For address changes or to unsubscribe, just send an e-mail to nirsnet(a)nirs.org. If you have friends or colleagues who would like to be on this list, have them send a note to nirsnet(a)nirs.org ---Ann Garrison anniegarrison(a)mac.com (415) 285-7259 (415) 786-6839 "El-Baradei has as much intention of stopping proliferation as George Bush has of stopping the drug trade." --Craig Reishus, Nuclear Free Future Awards, http://www.nuclear- free.com/english/frames7.htm

2 1