|
“Our freedoms can
only
be maintained by the advancement of technologies that serve mankind—
not
advancing technology puts Freedom at Risk and
our freedom is
threatened because we
don't take the time to
participate in it” GJD |
Support is Very Important
Please Donate
Northern Nevada Chapter
July Meeting
L to R Chapter Coordinator John Weiss,
Publisher Len Semas, USNEF Director Gary Duarte, Chapter Coordinator Dr.
Dennis Moltz
We had a great presentation by Len Semas, his publications books authored by
him and energy sources in general.
Learn more about Len at:
www.sierrasage.com
Legal upset for
political misrepresentation
of Yucca Mountain science
Posted by Nuclear
Townhall
SENATE
AND HOUSE MEMBERS TO DOE Secretary CHU: HALT
YUCCA SHUTDOWN
A bi-cameral,
bipartisan group of over 91 House and
Senate members have sent a letter to DOE
Secretary Chu calling for a halt on all
further Yucca termination activities
citing last week’s unanimous 3-0 NRC
judicial panel ruling that denied DOE’s
request to withdraw the DOE Yucca
license from NRC review.
Link to signed PDF
Prominent among
the members in signing the letter was
Senator Patty Murray who publicly broke
ranks last week in a press release with
Senator Harry Reid’s efforts to
terminate the Yucca project.
|
DOE-Shock-Yucca-License-Withdrawal-DENIED!
Senior-Senate-Democrat-Breaks-Ranks-Over-yucca
NY Times Administration Cannot Drop Bid for Nuclear Waste Dump in Nevada
US Nuclear Energy Foundation sends letter to
Secretary Chu, NRC commissioners and Nevada officials to put Yucca Mountain
back on track and restore it's full budget. USNEF urges all of its members
to participate. See the Chu letter and full contact addresses on our
"letters" page.
Letter to DOE Secretary Chu
See in depth candidate positions and new additions on our
CANDIDATES page!
NEI and WNA Headline Links
|
Your Government
From
his first day in office, President Obama has pushed to make
the federal government more open and more accessible to the
American people. The Department of Energy is proud to be
doing our part. In the past year, we have significantly
expanded the amount of information available online about
our programs, our funding awards, and our progress, as well
as valuable data about energy production and consumption and
trends within the energy industry. We have also used social
media outlets such as
YouTube and
my personal Facebook page to
engage the public directly and expand the national
conversation on energy. |
 |
In December, the
Administration directed federal agencies to take several
additional steps to implement the principles of
transparency, participation, and collaboration:
-
Transparency
promotes accountability by providing the public with
information about what the government is doing.
-
Participation
allows members
of the public to contribute ideas and expertise so that
their government can make policies with the benefit of
that information.
-
Collaboration
improves the effectiveness of government by encouraging
partnerships and cooperation within the federal
government, across levels of government, and between the
government and private institutions.
You
can find all of the steps we're taking in the full
Open Government Directive.
I
encourage you to review the information on these pages and
share your ideas with us. I look
forward to reading your thoughts and to incorporating them
into our effort moving forward. As always, we will keep you
posted on our progress.
-Secretary Steven Chu
Funding fortifies US nuclear education
13 July 2010
University-level nuclear education in the USA is to be
boosted by $18.2 million in funding for research reactor
upgrades, equipment purchases and student funding from the
US Department of Energy (DoE).
The funding, being provided through the Nuclear Energy
University Program (NEUP), will see DoE provide $5 million
in scholarships and fellowships to 117 nuclear science and
engineering students. A further $13.2 million is awarded to
universities and colleges for equipment and infrastructure,
including upgrades to research reactors. In total, some 39
academic institutions stand to benefit from the funding.
Announcing the funding, US energy
secretary Steven Chu described it as an investment that
would give US students the support and resources they would
need to keep the USA at the forefront of the nuclear
industry. "Restarting the US nuclear industry is a critical
part of our efforts to build a clean energy economy and
create clean energy jobs," he said.
Four major research reactor upgrades funded by the grants
are led by North Carolina State University, which receives
nearly $1.4 million to upgrade its PULSTAR research reactor.
Other major reactor upgrade projects are cooling tower cell
upgrades at the University of Missouri Research Reactor,
infrastructure upgrades at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Research Reactor, and cooling tower replacements
plus other infrastructure replacements at Texas A&M
University's Texas Engineering Experiment Station. Minor
reactor upgrades are funded at a further 11 institutes.
Student funding
Both undergraduate and postgraduate
students in nuclear energy-related science and engineering
programs will benefit from the $5 million in scholarships
and fellowships announced by DoE. One-year scholarships of
$5000 will be awarded to 85 undergraduate students, while 32
postgraduate fellowships will each receive $50,000 per year
over 3 years to help pay for their graduate studies and
research.
In May 2010, Chu announced the award of $38 million to 42
university-led nuclear research projects covering fuel
cycle research and development, Generation IV reactor
research and development, light water reactor sustainability
and mission-relevant investigator-initiated research. US
universities and students have received over $80 million in
funding under NEUP since 2008.
Researched and written by
World Nuclear News |
|
Former New York
Governor George Pataki
made a stop in Reno while on his nationwide
tour 04-19-10
www.revereamerica.org
When I hit him up with
my nuclear energy and Yucca Mountain question, (as I do everyone) he
responded YES to both. AND also that he lives only 5 miles from the
Entergy Indian Point Energy Center in New York.
One of the biggest
problems the U. S. has nationwide with nuclear energy advocacy is
getting all of the advocates on the same page instead of pursuing
there own agendas and keeping their advocacy statements "politically
sanitized". That's a tough place to be when so much discussion over
the years have been half-truth's about the safety and economic
stability of nuclear power. |
Gary Duarte,
Director, USNEF, Governor George Pataki |
|
Barry Goldwater, Jr. and Gary
Duarte, Director, USNEF |
As we
continue our "display" tables and booths at various events, we
recently attended a "Candidates and Constitution" forum in Reno.
And
yes, Mr. Goldwater supports nuclear energy development and the
Yucca Mountain Repository. |
19 organizations draft a joint
letter to DOE Secretary Dr. Steven Chu
Dear Dr. Chu: (full draft on link above)
The undersigned
organizations are writing to advise you of our growing concern over reports
that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will decline to seek funding in
Fiscal Year 2011 for continuation of the Yucca Mountain license application
now pending before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
We believe that termination of
the Yucca Mountain license application would be premature and unwise as well
as deleterious in general to the Nation's energy independence, environmental
progress, economic competitiveness, job creation and national security.
Open Letter
US Nuclear
Energy Foundation offers
a "Road Tour" of our presentation,
"A Primer on Nuclear Energy" to small western towns & Nevada communities.
Jump to these
hot
items
Energy Cost Comparisons
PAYING
TOO MUCH FOR POWER?
|
Energy
Type |
Cents
per kWh |
1250
kW/h Ave Bill |
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear |
7.0¢ |
$87.50 |
|
Coal |
7.1¢ |
$88.75 |
|
Natural Gas |
7.8¢ |
$97.50 |
|
Geothermal |
9¢ |
$112.50 |
|
Petroleum |
10.6¢ |
$132.50 |
|
Wind |
11.4¢ |
$142.50 |
|
Biomass |
11¢ |
$137.50 |
|
Solar -- Thermal |
21¢ |
$262.50 |
|
Solar - Photo Voltaic
|
1.11 |
$1,387.50 |
|
|
|
|
SIMILAR ASSESSMENT
We try to be
careful with these numbers – and provide all of the assumptions
which are key. We know for instance that the renewable folks don’t
tend to account for the cost of subsidies in their
calculations which has a huge impact on the true cost numbers.
Modeling
of new plant costs indicates that estimates of busbar costs are
sensitive to more than just the overnight cost of the facility.
They are sensitive to assumptions about the debt-equity ratio of the
project, the cost of capital, capacity factors, useful life, the
scope of work included in the project cost, and other variables.
These
numbers were found on a “Consumer Session” set of PowerPoint
slides on the Nevada PUC website (link below). These PPT
slides cite no sources for the numbers presented, so we have no way
of determining their basis or checking their assumptions
independently.
The
value shown for the cost of each resource type was the high end from
a range of values presented in the original data published on a
Nevada PUC website. The coal and gas costs shown in the original
PPT slides assume a cost of carbon described only as “$6-$8 per
ton”. [In work with Cambridge Energy Research Associates and
others, the anticipated price of carbon is well above this range,
more on the order of $20 per ton or more. Moreover, CERA and
others estimate that cost per ton must rise to $50 or so to have a
substantial effect on reducing carbon emissions under most
scenarios.] The range of values presented in the Consumer Sessions
PPT file, with and without a carbon price, is shown below:
|
Resource Type |
Cost w/o Carbon Charge
(Cents/kWh) Est. wholesale |
Cost w/Carbon @ $6-$8/ton
(Cents/kWh) |
|
Nuclear |
5-7¢ |
Virtually no carbon emissions |
|
Pulverized
Coal |
6 to 6.5¢ |
6.6 to 7.1 TOTAL = .12¢ |
|
Natural Gas
Combined Cycle |
6.5 to 7.5¢ |
6.8 to 7.8¢ |
|
Geothermal |
6 to 9¢ |
Virtually no carbon emissions |
|
Wind |
6.4 to 11.4 w/tax credits |
Virtually no carbon emissions |
|
Biomass |
7 to 11¢ |
Virtually no carbon emissions |
|
Solar-thermal |
11 to 21¢ |
Virtually no carbon emissions |
|
Solar-photovoltaic |
1.11 w/battery backup
+ 20¢
to 30¢
w/o battery backup |
Virtually no carbon emissions |
We note some
differences with the consumer costs presented in the table generally
applied to Nevada. According to the Department of Energy’s Energy
Information Administration, the average Nevada residential customer
consumed 986 kwh per month in 2007, not the 1250 kwh.
According to the EIA, the average residential price for
electricity in Nevada was about 11.8 cents per kwh in 2007.
Definitive
work on new plant costs compares the cost of new nuclear plants to other
baseload technologies, including pulverized coal, IGCC, and combined
cycle gas turbines.
We find that
0.07¢
/kWh cost of nuclear
is on par with the levelized busbar costs we estimate for new nuclear
plants using an NEI Financial Model.
ABOUT
OPERATING COSTS
The Electric
Utility Cost Group collects the most complete and pedigreed data on
operating plant costs. The Nuclear Committee of EUCG has labored
for years to define and implement a consistent set of cost metrics
across the operating fleet. Their metric of choice, called Total
Generating Costs, includes O&M, Administrative and General, Fuel,
and Annual Capital Improvements, but excludes “Carrying Costs”.
The Carrying Costs include return on investment, depreciation, and
decommissioning funding. The “mortgage costs” are excluded from
the EUCG’s Total Generating Cost because the cost basis of every
plant differs due to changes in ownership and changes in the structure
of the owner/operator/holding company, to say nothing of differences in
the treatment of capital costs from state to state. The other EUCG
generation committees (Fossil, Hydro) do not yet have Total Generating
Cost data to permit us to compare nuclear plant operating costs on the
same basis as fossil and hydro plants. In our review of the EUCG’s most
recent complete year’s data, from 2007, the median value of Total
Generating Cost appears to be about $25 per MWh (2.5 cents per kWh),
about what you recalled.
Link to Nevada Public
Utilities PowerPoint Slides
LETTERS TO OUR REPRESENTATIVES
AND
our contact database!
Contact Database
U. S. Governors
U. S. Senators
U. S. Represenatives
Nevada Senate
Nevada Assembly
The Economic Impact
of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear
Waste Repository on the Economy of Nevada
Prepared by
Mary Riddel
Martin Boyett
R. Keith Schwer
Center for Business and Economic Research
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
September 29, 2003
This snippet is significantly
abridged but the full text of the summary of this report is
LINKED HERE. Consideration should also be
assessed for the time frame economics from 2003 to 2010 and further.
This research summarizes the current and
expected future economic impacts of the YMP on the state of Nevada. The
findings show that YMP could provide a stable source of revenue, income,
and employment for the state.
In 2000, the YMP contributed $195.7
million to the Nevada economy and an additional $188.6 million in 2001.
The YMP was responsible for 3,650 jobs in 2000. This translates into
a real disposable income of roughly $131 million earned each year in the
state of Nevada . . . New employment linked to the project is expected to
peak during the construction phase at nearly 4,500 jobs . . .
Employment gains will average 2,000 to 2,500 above and beyond the
baseline job forecast during the transportation and operations phase. Wages,
salaries, and in-state procurement activity are expected to boost
state GSP by as much as $228 million during the peak of the construction
phase in 2006. Average annual GSP impacts over the transportation and
operations phase exceed $102 million annually, topping $127 million in many
years.
YMP jobs will be concentrated in relatively
high-wage industries such as construction, professional services, and
engineering. As such, they can provide a steady stream of income to Nevada
residents that are largely independent of national and international
economic cycles.
This study does not address any
potential of evaluating the possibility of locating a used nuclear fuel
reprocessing facility in Nevada to reprocess the planned waste.
A nuclear future for Nevada
Think About It!
This report is openly published for the citizens, business community and
public policy makers to assess and include nuclear in the
development of renewable energy resources.
CLICK here to jump to this page |
 |
|
"The Downside of Nuclear Power-by an Advocate"
Howard Shaffer
The essay above discusses the Origins of the
Conflict; the Downside, including the Opponent’s 1 Case; Policies
proposed by the Opponents and Mistakes of the Advocates; an Analysis
of the Debate; and Future Paths, which are the author’s predictions.
|
Link to
Our Report On
American Nuclear Society Winter meeting, Reno, NV
US Nuclear Energy addresses the
Sparks Republican Women
Special Guest, Dan R. Keuter,
Vice President Planning & Innovation, Entergy Nuclear Inc.
East, West, front and back for
Areva
22 December
2008
|
Areva
has simultaneously announced plans for the manufacture of
nuclear fuel with Japan's Mitsubishi as well as
reprocessing and recycling at home in France. |
|
 |
|
Areva's headquarters in Paris |
|
The deal
with Mitsubishi builds on a memorandum of understanding signed in April
2008. It will see Areva take a 30% stake in a new company that will "be a
fully-fledged nuclear fuel supplier, integrating development, design,
manufacturing and sales of nuclear fuel."
The
remainder of the company would be held by: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
(35%), Mitsubishi Materials Corporation (30%), Mitsubishi Corporation (5%).
It will be built out of the existing Mitsubishi Nuclear Fuel company, in
Tokai-mura.
The new
company is yet to be named, but statements from the firms said it would be
established in the first half of 2009, and expects Y50 billion ($550
million) in sales by 2020 in the Japanese market. It would employ around 550
people and will supply fuel for light-water reactors and high-temperature
gas-cooled models including MOX. It will offer reconversion services and
would market MHI-designed fuel assemblies outside of Japan.
Areva
and MHI also confirmed that they want to invest in a nuclear fuel
fabrication facility in the USA.
In France,
Areva has agreed a framework for the reprocessing and recycling of
Electricité de France's used nuclear fuel from 2008 to 2040. It covers
Areva's pick-up and transportation of the used fuel from EdF's 20 nuclear
power sites, its reprocessing and the separation of re-usable materials
followed by packaging and minimization of waste volumes for eventual
disposal.
The
companies said the new framework gave them long-term visibility - especially
in the context of EdF's desire to increase volumes sent for reprocessing
from 850 to 1050 tonnes per year and the need to step up manufacture of MOX
fuel from recycled materials from 100 to 120 tonnes per year.
Our long term mission
is to mobilize citizens in Nevada and across the U.S. to drive
Government, media and our nations business community to design build
and construct new 3rd and 4 generation nuclear power reactors and
spent fuel reprocessing technology throughout America!
We are 100% supportive of
renewable energy our challenge is getting it cost comparative and we
urge renewables and green proponants to support nuclear as “part”
our entire clean energy mix!
Yucca
Mountain application docketed
US Nuclear plants set records for electricity production, efficiency
and in low cost in 2007
Link to
FULL TEXT
OUR
Hotspots!
We would like to clarify that although our focus is
nuclear energy, we are 100% supportive of all renewable and green energy
alternatives. However, the criteria is that they must be
"cost effective"!
The highly discussed
topic of
Green Energy is going to require a
"socioeconomic acceptance",
meaning, society will have to accept that the development of wind, solar,
etc. will increase your electrical power costs. This is ok for the affluent
portion of our society but it will be very difficult for low-income and
fixed income people in retirement to manage their ever increasing energy
costs!
They will say, if we
build 200 solar farms, the production cost will come down and it will, but
if we build 200 new nuclear plants, those costs will come down as well and
the "production output" of nuclear energy far exceeds that any other source!
l
We started losing our US manufacturing
industries in the 80s due to high energy costs and that trend has been
devastating to many “industrial” products moving offshore partially as a
result of energy costs. Today, the cost of energy is a world competition not
just a US competition. Energy IS the driver of all economies worldwide, we
cannot afford to lose this competition!
l
Nuclear kilowatts today are sold at about .9
cents per KWH. The best German designed solar systems are “trying” to
achieve .22 cents per KWH. Pennies here but billions when they accumulate.
We need renewable sources but, we really need to “reduce” our energy
costs in order to compete with the “world” industrialization. Not only are
they out performing us with labor productivity, they are also building
nuclear power plants and it's these combinations that are making it very
difficult for US to stay competitive.
|
A NEW PAPER FROM DR. COHEN
Radioactive Waste
Disposal:
Nature’s Way vs Government’s Way
Dr. Bernard L. Cohen,
University of Pittsburgh
Dr. Cohen Writes of this in
1990
!!!
The Greenhouse Effect:
on melting of our ice caps . . . If
present trends continue . . . a reasonable estimate-middle of the
next century, 1.5 to 3'. 1 foot sea level rise would move the coast
line back 50-100' in the northeast . . . 200' in the Carolinas . . .
2-400' in California . . . 100 to 1,000' in Florida . . . several
miles in Louisiana . . . Dr. Cohen book Chap 3 Pgs 24-25 on the link
below.
Environmental Problems With Coal, Oil & Gas.
Something to think about! |
VIP Links Tab
Jump too it!
Special Page Links:
Susan Eisenhower speaks at UN on role of nuclear energy
The riff about
Data Falsification
at Yucca Mountain, read the truth! Click-the-link!
Think About It!
The mission
for this website is to provide an “informational educational source”
about Nuclear Energy compared to other forms of “comparable volumes”
of electrical energy production. Our purpose is to present scientific
studies and logical conclusions to average Citizens, news media,
government and business representatives about the efficiency,
productivity and safety of Nuclear Energy Power Plants.
01)
We are a
grassroots informational group to educate average citizens about the
benefits of nuclear energy and the Yucca Mountain waste repository.
Environmentalists, government regulation and the media have created a
negative perception
about the safety of nuclear energy and the repository for its spent fuel.
Our mission is to bring the facts of the science to
the public.
02)
We believe
nuclear energy is the best alternative to fossil fuels for energy needs of
the present and future. We believe nuclear energy is the best alternative
energy source to provide quality jobs in America. We believe the
Yucca Mountain
project is the
best solution
to the nuclear waste by-product issue.
03)
We believe the pursuit of nuclear energy research will
contribute to the development of many
new nuclear power generator designs
which are more efficient and
safer then their predecessors.
04)
We believe the development of more nuclear power
plants will significantly reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, which will
improve our economy on many levels while reducing long-term energy costs and
our dependency on foreign oil.
We need to
re-build America’s
nuclear ENERGY industry.
Nearly every industrialized country in the world including
“oil rich”
middle east countries are building nuclear power plants because they are a
“maximum efficiency energy source”. In the early years we over reacted
to the fear of
"radiation effects, accidents, etc." of the 60-70s
(SEE
THE CHERNOBYL tab).
Nuclear technologies today are
well advanced from when we
developed our first nuclear plants. We are foolish not to excel and benefit from this efficient energy
source which would have far reaching benefits of stabilizing America’s
energy requirements and independence from the oil producing nations.
We need
YOU to become Pro-Active. Our US energy requirements exceed our
production requirements and our fossil fuels are KILLING us and they
are the largest contributors to our global “greenhouse effect”
problems. Eliminating our consumption is not an option. We are learning to
conserve and we are developing alternative sources, wind, solar, etc.
However, the fact remains, the sooner we resolve to “educate ourselves”
about NUCLEAR ENERGY and notify our state and federal
governments that we want this directive addressed, the sooner we
“will resolve” our energy needs for our children and grandchildren.
America’s energy has extremely important ramifications for YOUR
American
freedoms. If you share these views then we urge you to lend a hand!
|
