Watchdog warns of inadequate nuclear security

Louis Charbonneau
Planet Ark
December 3, 2001

VIENNA (REUTERS) – The International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) said last week recent cases of illicit nuclear material trafficking showed the urgent need for better protection and control of radioactive material.

In a report to an IAEA board of governors session attended by U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, the United Nations’ atomic watchdog said that with nuclear material subject to national protection meausures, application of regulations remained uneven.

In recent years there have been 175 cases of illicit trafficking of nuclear materials, the report said.

“While only a few of these cases involved significant amounts of nuclear material, they demonstrate that security is still inadequate at certain locations and that there is an urgent need for improved protection and control,” it said.

Without mentioning any names, the IAEA report said there was lax security in some states, warning that an undetermined number of radioactive sources had become “orphaned” from regulatory control and their present location was unknown.

The robustness of nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities when faced with sabotage or acts of extreme violence varied from country to country and facility to facility.

“Agency assessments of facility design and operational measures can contribute to preventing and/or mitigating the impact of malicious acts,” the IAEA said, adding that it was revising standards on the construction of nuclear facilities.

The IAEA also plans to upgrade its international emergency response in the event of future radiological disasters. The agency has also offered to review national nuclear emergency response programmes to assess their effectiveness.

IDENTIFYING VULNERABLE LOCATIONS

“We need to urgently identify the most vulnerable locations and see they get the necessary security upgrades,” said IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei.

“In the long term, we need to ensure all countries have a stringent nuclear security framework in place – with high standards to abide by, state-of-the-art equipment, and people trained in security.”

The IAEA said past efforts had focused largely on diversion of nuclear material by states for non-peaceful purposes, with much less attention given to the activities of sub-national groups, such as Saudi-born dissident Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda.

ElBaradei said the increased security would not come free-of-charge and called on countries to come up with the funds necessary to help the agency be an effective atomic watchdog.

“We have the solutions,” said ElBaradei. “Now governments have to come up with the resources.”

The IAEA report estimates that the proposed programme upgrades will cost $30-50 million, which would mean an initial 10-15 percent increase in the IAEA’s total available resources.

ElBaradei said the agency’s budget was underfunded by $40 million due to years of “zero real growth” of the IAEA budget. But funds needed to fight the nuclear terrorist threat would not stop at the $70-90 million the IAEA needed for its own budget.

The necessary global upgrades to meet the full range of possible threats would be in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars and would have to be carried out by individual states and through bilateral and multilateral assistance.

If states come up with the necessary funds, ElBaradei said the enhanced and additional activities proposed in his report should lead to a powerful national and international security framework for nuclear facilities and material.

“If we can establish international standards, effective security systems and oversight in all states, and better monitoring of borders, then we can provide a guarantee that the world will be a much safer place,” said ElBaradei.

Posted in Nuclear Plant Security | Leave a comment

New Sellafield terror warning

BBC
December 3, 2001

Terrorists deliberately flying an aircraft into the Sellafield nuclear repocessing plant could “wipe out the north of England”, a pressure group has told MPs.

Campaigners from Friends of the Earth (FoE) told the Commons’ environment committee’s inquiry into radioactive waste policy an 11 September-type atrocity could kill 2 million people.

The US terror attacks has led the group to rethink its long-standing insistence that waste must be stored above ground at the Cumbrian plant so it can be constantly monitored.

Both FoE and Greenpeace argue the UK’s nuclear power programme must halt to prevent production of more waste while no safe and permanent method of disposing of it is available.

Liquid solution

Charles Secrett, FoE’s executive director, told MPs bunkers may have to be built to keep the waste safe from terrorists.

Waste at Sellafield is held in a liquid solution, which campaigners warn could be widely dispersed in the case of a deliberate or accidental plane crash.

Dr Rachel Western, FoE’s nuclear research officer, told MPs: “If somebody was to make the decision to drop a plane on Sellafield, it would be disastrous – it would wipe out the north of England.”

Mr Secrett stressed that the new threat did not lead FoE to accept the solution preferred by many in the nuclear industry, of sealing the waste in deep burial sites far beneath the surface of the earth.

Sellafield has been the target of protesters

Studies had shown it would be impossible to rule out leaks of radioactive material into the environment from such sites, he said.

Environment minister Michael Meacher launched a consultation process on 12 September – the day after the US tragedy.

He was seeking opinion on the options for long-term handling of nuclear waste, including deep burial.

Greenpeace UK executive director Stephen Tindale told the MPs: “We don’t believe there is any way of disposing of nuclear waste.

“You can bury it – out of sight and out of mind – but the radioactivity will come back to haunt you. We are opposed on principle to deep burial.”

Similar terrorist warnings have been made since 11 September by the Green Party and the Irish Government.

International tribunal

The Commons committee hearing came on the day a United Nations maritime tribunal rejected a bid by Ireland to block plans to expand operations at Britain’s Sellafield nuclear plant.

The Irish Government had tried to challenge the decision to allow the controversial plant to start producing mixed plutonium and uranium oxide (Mox) fuel.

It argued that theA3470m development, on the Cumbrian coast opposite Ireland, broke international laws on sea pollution and posed safety and security concerns.

Dublin wanted Britain to be ordered to suspend Mox operations until an international arbitration tribunal was established to resolve the dispute.

But judges at the UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg rejected the legal challenge on Monday.

Posted in Nuclear Plant Security | Leave a comment

Tories privatize Hydro One

Canadian Press
Toronto Star
December 1, 2001

In what promises to be the largest privatization in Canadian history, Ontario will sell its monolithic electricity transmitter and open its $10-billion electricity market to competition.

After months of intense speculation by political and industry insiders, Premier Mike Harris announced today his government will take the controversial plunge “as soon as possible” to sell Hydro One – a public remnant of the old Ontario Hydro utility – in an initial public offering.

The dollar figure attached to the deal will surpass the sale of Highway 407 and the Canadian National Railway, and will help pay down the province’s $38-billion hydro debt, Harris told reporters.

“The value of the offering remains to be determined by SuperBuild (an agency of the Finance Ministry) and its financial advisors, however I can assure you that the sale that I have announced today will be the largest privatization ever in Canadian history,” he said.

Harris insisted the move won’t mean soaring costs for consumers, despitedisastrous initial results in Alberta and other jurisdictions that have deregulated power industries and sold public utilities.

“Our goal is to not only privatize and sell Hydro One … it’s also to do so in such a way that we believe will give the biggest incentive to have the lowest price for consumers,” he said.

While the province has retained control of its generators for now through Ontario Power Generation, deregulation will allow private companies to enter into the generating and selling business alongside the Crown corporation.

Some critics said Wednesday that selling off Hydro One and opening the market could very well mean soaring prices similar to those in California, where rates tripled and forced a national crisis last winter.

“The announcement today doesn’t steer us clear of shoals with the words California written all over them,” said Tom Adams, head of Energy Probe, the province’s energy watchdog.

“There are clearly major problems in Ontario’s electricity restructuring. Consumers are looking at substantially higher prices because of a series of mistakes that have been made so far in electricity restructuring. But the good news is our problems in our power restructuring haven’t gotten worse.”

Breaking up Hydro One into smaller companies and selling them off piecemeal would have been a better option, Adams added.

“By pursuing an (initial public offering) of the existing business rather than breaking the business into pieces and auctioning the pieces, we get stuck with the existing management at Hydro One,” he said.

Liberal energy critic Sean Conway said the public is still largely in the dark on the deal.

“Are there going to be limits, for example, on who can bid on this very important public asset? Is there going to be any constraint around foreign ownership? Is there any limit to how much any group or individual can own? Most especially, how is this going to be designed to protect the consumer interest?” he asked.

Harris said bidding options would be determined by SuperBuild.

But Conway argued that while “hundreds of millions” of dollars in fees and services were in the offing through the sale, the average consumer did not necessarily stand to benefit.

“Bay Street is going to be delighted, Main Street is going to be very worried because they will be looking for protections and the (previous sale of Highway 407) indicates that those protections are not always there.”

Major wholesale electricity users such as auto makers and steel plants had lobbied for an alternative plan which would have turned Hydro One into a not-for-profit entity.

They argued the plan would stop taxes from flowing to the federal government, helping to pay off the debt and keep wholesale electricity costs down.

A spring deregulation date will fall no later than May, 2002, and will be announced before Christmas, Harris said.

Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty said privatizing the company was the right move, but should have been done following an open debate in the legislature.

“There are good public-private partnerships and bad public-private partnerships, and my concern is this government’s track record,” he said.

The Conservative government had initially promised deregulation by November 2000, but got cold feet after initial deregulation attempts in Alberta and California led to doubling and tripling of rates, blackouts and, in the case of California, near-bankrupt utilities.

In Alberta, more than $1 billion in consumer rebates were issued this year alone after rates soared and some businesses were forced to operate at night, when power costs were lower.

But that situation has improved: California has a glut of excess electricity and prices have been falling sharply in recent months, while in Alberta higher production and low gas prices have made power costs fall.

Ontario Hydro was the largest public utility in Canada before the Conservatives split it into three entities – Hydro One, which manages the distribution of electricity through the hydro grid, Ontario Power Generation, which produces the province’s electricity, and the Independent Electricity Market Operator.

Hydro Quebec is now the largest public utility in Canada, and British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba still run Crown corporations in the electrical industry.

Several other provinces already have private companies operating power transmission or production companies, including Atco, Transalta and the TransCanada Pipelines power generation division in Alberta.

 

Posted in Reforming Ontario's Local Electrical Distribution Sector | Leave a comment

Tories privatize Hydro One

Canadian Press
Toronto Star
December 1, 2001

In what promises to be the largest privatization in Canadian history, Ontario will sell its monolithic electricity transmitter and open its $10-billion electricity market to competition.

After months of intense speculation by political and industry insiders, Premier Mike Harris announced today his government will take the controversial plunge “as soon as possible” to sell Hydro One – a public remnant of the old Ontario Hydro utility – in an initial public offering.

The dollar figure attached to the deal will surpass the sale of Highway 407 and the Canadian National Railway, and will help pay down the province’s $38-billion hydro debt, Harris told reporters.

“The value of the offering remains to be determined by SuperBuild (an agency of the Finance Ministry) and its financial advisors, however I can assure you that the sale that I have announced today will be the largest privatization ever in Canadian history,” he said.

Harris insisted the move won’t mean soaring costs for consumers, despitedisastrous initial results in Alberta and other jurisdictions that have deregulated power industries and sold public utilities.

“Our goal is to not only privatize and sell Hydro One … it’s also to do so in such a way that we believe will give the biggest incentive to have the lowest price for consumers,” he said.

While the province has retained control of its generators for now through Ontario Power Generation, deregulation will allow private companies to enter into the generating and selling business alongside the Crown corporation.

Some critics said Wednesday that selling off Hydro One and opening the market could very well mean soaring prices similar to those in California, where rates tripled and forced a national crisis last winter.

“The announcement today doesn’t steer us clear of shoals with the words California written all over them,” said Tom Adams, head of Energy Probe, the province’s energy watchdog.

“There are clearly major problems in Ontario’s electricity restructuring. Consumers are looking at substantially higher prices because of a series of mistakes that have been made so far in electricity restructuring. But the good news is our problems in our power restructuring haven’t gotten worse.”

Breaking up Hydro One into smaller companies and selling them off piecemeal would have been a better option, Adams added.

“By pursuing an (initial public offering) of the existing business rather than breaking the business into pieces and auctioning the pieces, we get stuck with the existing management at Hydro One,” he said.

Liberal energy critic Sean Conway said the public is still largely in the dark on the deal.

“Are there going to be limits, for example, on who can bid on this very important public asset? Is there going to be any constraint around foreign ownership? Is there any limit to how much any group or individual can own? Most especially, how is this going to be designed to protect the consumer interest?” he asked.

Harris said bidding options would be determined by SuperBuild.

But Conway argued that while “hundreds of millions” of dollars in fees and services were in the offing through the sale, the average consumer did not necessarily stand to benefit.

“Bay Street is going to be delighted, Main Street is going to be very worried because they will be looking for protections and the (previous sale of Highway 407) indicates that those protections are not always there.”

Major wholesale electricity users such as auto makers and steel plants had lobbied for an alternative plan which would have turned Hydro One into a not-for-profit entity.

They argued the plan would stop taxes from flowing to the federal government, helping to pay off the debt and keep wholesale electricity costs down.

A spring deregulation date will fall no later than May, 2002, and will be announced before Christmas, Harris said.

Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty said privatizing the company was the right move, but should have been done following an open debate in the legislature.

“There are good public-private partnerships and bad public-private partnerships, and my concern is this government’s track record,” he said.

The Conservative government had initially promised deregulation by November 2000, but got cold feet after initial deregulation attempts in Alberta and California led to doubling and tripling of rates, blackouts and, in the case of California, near-bankrupt utilities.

In Alberta, more than $1 billion in consumer rebates were issued this year alone after rates soared and some businesses were forced to operate at night, when power costs were lower.

But that situation has improved: California has a glut of excess electricity and prices have been falling sharply in recent months, while in Alberta higher production and low gas prices have made power costs fall.

Ontario Hydro was the largest public utility in Canada before the Conservatives split it into three entities – Hydro One, which manages the distribution of electricity through the hydro grid, Ontario Power Generation, which produces the province’s electricity, and the Independent Electricity Market Operator.

Hydro Quebec is now the largest public utility in Canada, and British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba still run Crown corporations in the electrical industry.

Several other provinces already have private companies operating power transmission or production companies, including Atco, Transalta and the TransCanada Pipelines power generation division in Alberta.

 

Posted in Reforming Ontario's Local Electrical Distribution Sector | Leave a comment

Tories privatize Hydro One

Canadian Press
Toronto Star
December 1, 2001

In what promises to be the largest privatization in Canadian history, Ontario will sell its monolithic electricity transmitter and open its $10-billion electricity market to competition.

After months of intense speculation by political and industry insiders, Premier Mike Harris announced today his government will take the controversial plunge “as soon as possible” to sell Hydro One – a public remnant of the old Ontario Hydro utility – in an initial public offering.

The dollar figure attached to the deal will surpass the sale of Highway 407 and the Canadian National Railway, and will help pay down the province’s $38-billion hydro debt, Harris told reporters.

“The value of the offering remains to be determined by SuperBuild (an agency of the Finance Ministry) and its financial advisors, however I can assure you that the sale that I have announced today will be the largest privatization ever in Canadian history,” he said.

Harris insisted the move won’t mean soaring costs for consumers, despitedisastrous initial results in Alberta and other jurisdictions that have deregulated power industries and sold public utilities.

“Our goal is to not only privatize and sell Hydro One … it’s also to do so in such a way that we believe will give the biggest incentive to have the lowest price for consumers,” he said.

While the province has retained control of its generators for now through Ontario Power Generation, deregulation will allow private companies to enter into the generating and selling business alongside the Crown corporation.

Some critics said Wednesday that selling off Hydro One and opening the market could very well mean soaring prices similar to those in California, where rates tripled and forced a national crisis last winter.

“The announcement today doesn’t steer us clear of shoals with the words California written all over them,” said Tom Adams, head of Energy Probe, the province’s energy watchdog.

“There are clearly major problems in Ontario’s electricity restructuring. Consumers are looking at substantially higher prices because of a series of mistakes that have been made so far in electricity restructuring. But the good news is our problems in our power restructuring haven’t gotten worse.”

Breaking up Hydro One into smaller companies and selling them off piecemeal would have been a better option, Adams added.

“By pursuing an (initial public offering) of the existing business rather than breaking the business into pieces and auctioning the pieces, we get stuck with the existing management at Hydro One,” he said.

Liberal energy critic Sean Conway said the public is still largely in the dark on the deal.

“Are there going to be limits, for example, on who can bid on this very important public asset? Is there going to be any constraint around foreign ownership? Is there any limit to how much any group or individual can own? Most especially, how is this going to be designed to protect the consumer interest?” he asked.

Harris said bidding options would be determined by SuperBuild.

But Conway argued that while “hundreds of millions” of dollars in fees and services were in the offing through the sale, the average consumer did not necessarily stand to benefit.

“Bay Street is going to be delighted, Main Street is going to be very worried because they will be looking for protections and the (previous sale of Highway 407) indicates that those protections are not always there.”

Major wholesale electricity users such as auto makers and steel plants had lobbied for an alternative plan which would have turned Hydro One into a not-for-profit entity.

They argued the plan would stop taxes from flowing to the federal government, helping to pay off the debt and keep wholesale electricity costs down.

A spring deregulation date will fall no later than May, 2002, and will be announced before Christmas, Harris said.

Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty said privatizing the company was the right move, but should have been done following an open debate in the legislature.

“There are good public-private partnerships and bad public-private partnerships, and my concern is this government’s track record,” he said.

The Conservative government had initially promised deregulation by November 2000, but got cold feet after initial deregulation attempts in Alberta and California led to doubling and tripling of rates, blackouts and, in the case of California, near-bankrupt utilities.

In Alberta, more than $1 billion in consumer rebates were issued this year alone after rates soared and some businesses were forced to operate at night, when power costs were lower.

But that situation has improved: California has a glut of excess electricity and prices have been falling sharply in recent months, while in Alberta higher production and low gas prices have made power costs fall.

Ontario Hydro was the largest public utility in Canada before the Conservatives split it into three entities – Hydro One, which manages the distribution of electricity through the hydro grid, Ontario Power Generation, which produces the province’s electricity, and the Independent Electricity Market Operator.

Hydro Quebec is now the largest public utility in Canada, and British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba still run Crown corporations in the electrical industry.

Several other provinces already have private companies operating power transmission or production companies, including Atco, Transalta and the TransCanada Pipelines power generation division in Alberta.

Posted in Reforming Ontario's Local Electrical Distribution Sector | Leave a comment

EDITORIAL: Blocking progress

Las Vegas Review-Journal
November 28, 2001

 

Why does nuclear power industry still need special liability protection?

Why do motorcycles have carburetors?

The earliest machines used open pans of gasoline — the vapors rising from the open fuel source were vacuumed into the cylinder and ignited by the spark plug, powering the engine. But of course this was dangerous — the fuel sloshed about, fires were common, and the likelihood that any insurer would have issued a policy underwriting the rider’s safety was far-fetched.

Manufacturers knew they had to come up with a safer and more reliable arrangement — and the race to develop the enclosed carburetor was on.

Today, exploding motorcycle engines are not a big problem.

But imagine for a moment that Congress had intervened. After all, motorcycles are useful to the military. If the early motorcycle manufacturers had enjoyed better political connections, they might have asked Congress to pass a law sharply limiting their liability in the case of fires from those primitive engines. Should anyone suffer a truly serious injury, Congress would step in and pay the bill. The manufacturers would have been able to continue making their bikes the old-fashioned way — and they’d still be blowing up with regularity.

The problem isn’t just theoretical. Government interventions really do distort the free market. The Price-Anderson Act was enacted in 1957 and has been renewed three times since — it will expire Aug. 1 unless the Senate joins in renewing it again, as the House voted to do Tuesday.

The law was specifically created to help the fledgling nuclear power industry bypass private insurers who wanted prohibitively high premiums to indemnify manufacturers and operators against liability claims that might result from a meltdown — assuming they’d insure them at all. The odds of such an event were extremely difficult to calculate, given that no one had a baseline of experience with commercial reactors.

So Congress simply waved its magic wand, and said any damages above $9.5 billion would be paid by Congress, which is to say the taxpayers. The way was cleared to build commercial reactors.

With the insurers thus indemnified, no one bothered to investigate the potential liability should all the spent fuel rods end up stored “on site” for the next 100,000 years. The precedent having been set, it was simply assumed Congress could and would step in to wave its magic wand yet again … as it soon will, mandating that all nuclear waste be buried in Nevada, whether the locals like it or not.

The Price-Anderson renewal was brought to the House floor Tuesday under guidelines more commonly used to speed through non-controversial measures “like renaming post offices and federal buildings,” points out Jill Lancelot, legislative director for the watchdog group Common Sense. Yet, “There is nothing more controversial than limiting liability protection for a politically powerful industry at the expense of taxpayers.”

Wouldn’t this be a good time for the Congress to subpoena witnesses from the insurance industry and ask them — given the track record of the past 40 years — whether this warping of the market is still required?

One need not be “against” nuclear power to say it should stand on its own two feet in competition with other methods of power generation — with the final arbiter being the independent insurance actuaries setting their liability rates, absent any federal “bailout.”

That’s how the free market works.

 

Posted in Nuclear Economics, Nuclear Plant Security, Nuclear Power, Towards Shutdown | Tagged | Leave a comment

Trade group rebuts effort to shut NY nuke plants

Planet Ark
November 22, 2001

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Arguing that customer costs would increase, an electric trade association in New York opposed a recent effort by environmental groups and local elected officials to shut nuclear power plants due to security concerns, the group said in a statement this week.

The Independent Power Producers of New York Inc. (IPPNY), which represents electric generators and marketers in New York, said shutting the plants would “immediately increase the cost of electricity to consumers, cost thousands of jobs, and threaten the reliability of New York’s electric system.

“While we understand the issue of plant security is on the minds of everyone who lives and works near a nuclear power plant, prudent steps have been taken to ensure the security of nuclear facilities in New York,” IPPNY Executive Director Gavin Donohue said in response to a petition filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to close the Indian Point power plant indefinitely.

About two weeks ago, Riverkeeper, an environmental group that seeks to protect the Hudson River, filed a petition with the NRC calling on the federal nuclear watchdog to immediately shut the Indian Point facility pending a full review of the plant’s vulnerabilities and safety systems.

Indian Point’s two operating nuclear reactors are located on the Hudson River in Buchanan, N.Y., about 40 miles north of New York City.

The facility, owned by a unit of energy giant Entergy Corp. of New Orleans, provides about 10 percent of the city’s power supply.

The petition by Riverkeeper, which is represented by environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., stated that the events of Sept. 11, “clearly demonstrate that the plant’s status needs to be reexamined.”

Pointing out that 20 million people live within a 50-mile radius of Indian Point, Riverkeeper warned an attack on the facility could have devastating consequences, rendering much of the Hudson River Valley, including New York City, uninhabitable.

IPPNY RESPONSE

The environmental groups are, “taking advantage of recent national security concerns,” said IPPNY.

“The NRC already has strict security standards that must be met by nuclear facilities across the country and is currently reviewing those standards to determine if there is room for improvement.”

“Calling for plants to shut down is the sort of knee-jerk reaction that won’t help security and will certainly have a negative impact on electricity markets and the economy,” IPPNY’s Donohue said.

Officials at the NRC said they have a well established process for handling petitions and will form a panel to look at the Riverkeeper’s filing.

“We just got it, so we are not even close to giving them a response yet,” said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman at the NRC.

Utilities depend on nuclear power to maintain a reliable, inexpensive supply of electricity.

There are more than 80 nuclear facilities in the U.S.

In New York, nuclear power supplies about 20 percent of the electricity consumed.

“If nuclear plants are shut down, electricity prices will increase significantly,” said IPPNY’s Donohue.

“This campaign is nothing more than a self-serving attempt to take advantage of the tragedies of Sept. 11 to permanently shut down these facilities,” Donohue said.

CLINTON INVOLVEMENT

Earlier this week, New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke at Indian Point about a plan to improve the safety of the nation’s nuclear power plants.

Last week, Sens. Clinton and Assistant Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada announced plans for legislation that would station federal agents at nuclear power plants to guard against security threats. The NRC said the bill would also likely seek the expansion of the emergency planning zone from 10 miles to 50 miles.

The emergency planning zone is the area surrounding a nuclear plant where most of the emergency response drilling and radiation testing occurs.

Increasing the zone around Indian Point to 50 miles would be very costly since it would include New York City.

Senators Clinton and Reid said they intend to introduce the bill after the Thanksgiving recess.

Posted in Nuclear Plant Security | Leave a comment

Winter energy savers

November 21, 2001

For consumers vexed by fixed-price, long-term gas and electricity prices, spooked by variable rates and the uncertainty of an open electricity market, the prospect of another winter is bound to test the pocket even further. So what better time than now to share with you a list of helpful resources offering ideas on energy efficiency and wallet conservation? After all, fair weather is the best time to prepare for foul.

Canadian sites are highlighted

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) http://www.aceee.org/consumerguide

Take energy use into account in your household purchasing and maintenance decisions with help from ACEEE’s publications Consumer Guide to Home Energy Savings, US$8.95, and The Most Energy-Efficient Appliances 2001, US$4.00 (available for order online). The site also features ACEEE’s backlist of consumer guides and reports on energy efficiency. On the freebie front, ACEEE offers click-on tips for saving energy in the home, although information is geared toward the U.S. market.

Cal Consultants Ltd./Canadian Gas Association http://www.cal.ca/climate/index_e_txt.html

This Web site on behalf of the Canadian Gas Association, offers consumers a Canada-wide “Home Tune-up”; a quick list of ways Canadians can reduce their share of greenhouse gas emissions, and save money at the same time. Cal’s site also lists contact details for further information and free publications on climate change and energy efficiency.

Center for a New American Dream http://www.newdream.org/turnthetide/

A new online program called “Turn the Tide,” demonstrates the powerful impact of small behavioural changes by offering consumers a novel way to protect the environment. A project of the Center for a New American Dream, participants are given nine simple, ecologically smart ways to change their lives, from cutting car trips to cancelling junk mail. Each member fills in a personal online log so the site can calculate how many resources the member saves. According to a Washington Post interview with Eric Brown, communications director at the Center for a New American Dream, 1,700 people have signed up for the initiative so far and current participants will save “over 5 million gallons of water, and prevent the release of over three-quarter million pounds of carbon dioxide over the course of a year.” Turn the Tide is open to Canadian residents (participants must fill out an online form and some questions, for instance, “Did you vote in the last three presidential elections?” are obviously not applicable). There is no cost to join, save time and effort (but think of the millions of gallons of water and pounds and pounds of carbon dioxide you’ll save).

Energy Ideas Clearinghouse http://www.energyideas.org/library/residtips.cfm

Energy Ideas Clearinghouse is a Washington State University energy program and its Web site, Energyideas.org, offers consumers a useful guide-at-a-glance to saving home energy. The site also features a Tip of the Day and a search-by-topic option for information on a variety of energy subjects, including appliances, electrical systems, heat recovery, lighting, water heating, and more. Energyideas.org provides help with specific energy problems, to boot.

The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)
http://www.iclei.org/audit/

ICLEI is an international agency for local governments, aimed at achieving tangible improvements in global environmental and sustainable development conditions through cumulative local actions. That aside, consumers will be intrigued by the organization’s audit Web site, which boasts a “fun” element with its Online Home Energy Audit. Just fill out the online form and submit. Behold! A customized online report giving information about your current energy use and the potential costs and savings associated with the installation of various energy-saving measures in your home should be forthcoming. A major bonus for Ontarian consumers is that the ICLEI audit assumes that the user lives in the province and uses weather data and energy prices specific to Ontario. Subject to funding constraints, ICLEI will endeavour to expand the audit for use in other parts of the world and, the rest of Canada, presumably.

Natural Resources Canada: Office of Energy Efficiency http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/english

Billed as Canada’s one-stop service for energy efficiency, this extensive government Web site is designed to assist both consumers and business. On offer is a guide to help consumers calculate home-heating costs, a guide for manufacturers and dealers on promoting the efficiency rating of heating and cooling equipment, and information about appliances (note, the type of appliance you choose says something about the life you lead).

Other options of interest include information on vehicles. Natural Resources Canada has developed an Auto$mart Program to provide Canadian motorists with helpful tips on buying, driving, and maintaining vehicles with a view to reducing fuel consumption and saving money. Browsers can use the site’s Tip of the Week to sharpen their knowledge of energy trivia (i.e., force yourself to take public transport; a single city bus is the transportation equivalent of 40 vehicles, saves 70,000 litres of fuel, and keeps 9 tonnes of pollutants out of the atmosphere each year). The Office of Energy Efficiency can also be contacted at 1-800-387-2000 for more information along the lines of searching out air leaks in the outer shell of the house; insulating, caulking and weather-stripping, and; getting the most out of a furnace.

U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network (EREN) http://www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo/energy_savers/

This colourful U.S. Department of Energy site is devoted to tips for saving energy and money in the home, topics include insulation and weatherization, heating and cooling, water heating, windows, landscaping, lighting, and appliances. The information given is for the U.S. market and, in some cases, of limited use, but the site’s overall design and usability makes it fun to navigate and prompters such as “Is a wind turbine right for you?” are hard to resist. The site also offers an Energy Tip of the Month feature.

Posted in Electricity | Leave a comment

Federal control will be sought for protection of nuclear plants

Robert F. Worth
New York Times
November 21, 2001

BUCHANAN, N.Y. — The federal government should assume responsibility for protecting the country’s nuclear power plants to safeguard them from terrorist attack, a group of Democratic members of Congress from New York said today.

Speaking outside the Indian Point nuclear plant here, the lawmakers — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Representatives Nita M. Lowey and Eliot L. Engel — said they planned to introduce legislation that would include the creation of a security force within the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mrs. Clinton also proposed to expand the evacuation zone around nuclear plants to 50 miles from 10 miles, along with other measures to protect people living close to the plants.

The federalization of airport security ignited a fierce debate in Congress before a compromise was reached. But so far, the Democrats’ proposal, whose details remain vague, has not drawn a clear response. Security at the nation’s 103 nuclear plants is handled by each plant’s owner, or a subcontractor, and that arrangement has not drawn serious criticism.

David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said federalizing security at the plants would probably be helpful, because security is uneven, with some owners doing the job well and others cutting back to save money.

“Having federal oversight would tend to be better than what we’ve had in the past,” he said.

Spokesmen for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Entergy, the company that owns Indian Point, said they supported better security but that it was too early to comment on the proposals.

Several elected officials have urged tighter security measures at nuclear plants since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, including Senator Charles E. Schumer, who toured Indian Point last week. But none have yet proposed that the job be federalized.

“I don’t think a piecemeal approach to security is what the people of Westchester or New York is really asking for,” said Mrs. Clinton, who plans to co-sponsor a bill next week with Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada. “We’re asking for a comprehensive approach.”

The bill also calls for an expansion of the evacuation zone, and new measures to toughen the simulated terrorist attacks the federal government already conducts periodically on nuclear plants to evaluate their safety. Mrs. Clinton said she would also propose stockpiling potassium iodide, which helps to prevent cancer and other diseases among people exposed to radiation.

Safety measures have been enhanced at all of the nation’s nuclear plants since Sept. 11. At Indian Point, National Guard troops can still be seen and the Coast Guard has patrolled the Hudson nearby.

But many believe that the plant’s proximity to New York makes it inherently dangerous. About 20 million people live within 50 miles of the plant, and two weeks ago four members of Congress and a number of officials signed a petition urging that Indian Point be closed until its safety could be guaranteed.

Expanding the evacuation zone to 50 miles would include New York City, which is 30 miles to the south. Mrs. Clinton did not offer details but said “the direction and force of the wind” would be the major determinant of where an evacuation would be needed. The evacuation plan has become a sore point for many people in Westchester County who believe that it would not work in a serious accident.

Many questions about the proposals remained unanswered, including their cost. “I don’t think you can put a price tag on real security and peace of mind,” Mrs. Clinton said.

 

Posted in Nuclear Plant Security | Leave a comment

Some homeowners stuck with high rates, as natural gas prices fall

CBC News Online
November 19, 2001

TORONTO – The price of natural gas is falling but some consumers have found themselves in a bind: they’re still paying sky-high prices.

Most of these people locked themselves into a contract after last year’s soaring energy prices.

Rose and Joe Balsamo decided to protect themselves early this year.

“The newspapers were full of stories…; horror stories, rates were going to increase,” says Rose.

To head off any more price boosts, Rose signed up online to buy natural gas at one price for a fixed term: 26-cents per cubic meter for five years. She now says she regrets that decision.

It used to be you had only one utility to purchase from, but with many provinces opting to deregulate their industries, buying gas is much like buying a mortgage.

There are different retailers offering a variety of packages.

Gas marketers going door to door have encouraged nearly half of Ontario’s gas customers to switch to a fixed deal, and that’s not always the best advice.

“The gas market works like the mortgage market. If you can withstand the volatility your best advice is to stay floating rather than go with the fixed price,” says Tom Adams of Energy Probe.

Even consumers who lived in regulated areas will find their bills high right now. Some utilities lost out last year when the price went up and they are still recovering those costs retroactively from consumers.

Prices this winter are expected to keep going down. Analysts say the weak economy and strong gas reserves will be a boon for those who didn’t sign for fixed rates.

The Balsamos are stuck now. They face a $425 penalty if they break their contract.

“In hindsight, I’d tell people, ‘don’t panic, wait it out, think it over and know what you’re signing,'” says Rose.

 

Posted in Natural Gas Utility Regulation and Commodity Deregulation | 1 Comment