NRC infighting shows politics over pragmatism in nuclear safety

WASHINGTON -- A feud at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where five presidentially appointed commissioners oversee the safety of the nation's nuclear power reactors, has broken out into full public view, with Chairman Gregory Jaczko's fellow commissioners assailing his character and management style, both in a letter made public earlier this month and in the resulting testimony before Congress.

Republicans have begun calling for Jaczko's ouster.

"The situation at the NRC sounds dire," wrote Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) in a letter to President Barack Obama, "leaving me very concerned that the Chairman is unable to lead the Commission in the fulfillment of its responsibilities."

On K Street, energy lobbyists have rallied to support the four other commissioners.

So far, the White House is standing by Jaczko, one of the least industry-friendly leaders to serve at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a generation.

For Washington's tight nuclear policy circle, where scientifically trained political operatives move back and forth between the industry, the NRC, the Department of Energy and key congressional committees, it's déjà vu. Interviews with several senior officials who worked on nuclear energy policy in the 1990s reveal that at least two of those operatives -- both with strong ties to the nuclear industry -- were closely involved in the ouster of an earlier reformist regulator and are now involved in the current drama.

What's unfolding at the NRC is a textbook example of a little-discussed corporate tactic that is employed against public officials in extreme situations. Observers of the way Washington works tend to describe the corruption of the political system and the people within it in terms of action and reward: Do what industry wants, and benefit both professionally and personally. But when carrots aren't enough, corporations have sticks to swing, too.

Susan McCue, who served as chief of staff for Jaczko's former employer and chief Democratic supporter, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), wasn't surprised to see the industry strategy at work.

"They have a lot of power, and they wield it," said McCue. "They can't tell Chairman Jaczko what to do, and I think that frustrates them."

THE FIRST COUP

The Clinton administration's skepticism of nuclear power -- driven in large part by then-Vice President Al Gore -- reached its fullest and earliest expression in 1994 with the installment of Terry Lash at the top of the Department of Energy's nuclear energy program.

Lash was a former staff scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, a prominent environmental group, and his appointment rankled nuclear industry insiders and their Republican supporters on the Hill. It wasn't long, say energy policy staffers involved at the time, before Lash's critics began seeking ways to undermine his position inside the department.

They got their chance after the White House struck a broad agreement with Russia, in which the U.S. would help Russia protect its nuclear stockpile. GOP appropriators had zeroed out funding for the program, and they instructed the administration not to use money set aside for other purposes.

Lash funded the program anyway and failed to keep congressional appropriators fully apprised of his activity. He was promptly called before a House subcommittee and publicly excoriated for his failure to communicate with Congress.

A subsequent investigation by the DOE's inspector general concluded that Lash, while violating procedure, had not broken any laws. But according to multiple sources who recalled the incident, Lash's gaffe was clearly being exploited in the service of a coup. These sources identified two men, Bill Magwood and Alex Flint, as being directly involved in Lash's ultimate downfall.

Magwood was Lash's deputy. He had come to the DOE from the nuclear industry, and he would return to it at subsequent points in his career.

Flint, meanwhile, was a clerk for Republican Sen. Pete Domenici, who steered billions of nuclear research dollars to his home state of New Mexico from his perch as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.

Democrats in the Senate and DOE who were involved at the time say that the House only found out about Lash's funding of the Russia program because Magwood, a fellow Democrat, personally alerted Domenici. One source recalled that Magwood went directly to Flint.

"I know that he talked to the Hill," said one former senior Senate Democratic aide who worked directly with Flint and Domenici's office at the time. "Whether he came to the Hill [physically], that's how it was brought to Domenici's attention, was through Magwood."

Lash, realizing too late that he was the likely target of a power play by his own deputy, fought back against Magwood by stripping him of staff. Congressional appropriators then rushed to Magwood's defense.

In an eerie echo of language that would later be used against Chairman Jaczko at the NRC, Rep. Joseph McDade (R-Pa.), who chaired the House subcommittee with nuclear jurisdiction, called Lash's move against Magwood an "unprecedented action which I believe further demonstrates the willingness of the director to treat this office as his personal playground."

In the end, Lash was not fired from the DOE, but was instead moved to a top adviser position within what is now the National Nuclear Security Administration in May 1998 -- evidence that Lash had been the victim of politics rather than guilty of wrongdoing. "The Secretary just felt it was better for Terry to step aside," given the political pressure, said a former DOE official who worked with both Lash and Magwood.

Magwood, meanwhile, took over for Lash as acting director of the Office of Nuclear Energy. When George W. Bush became president in early 2001, he asked for the resignations of top DOE officials. But Magwood had a patron in Domenici, and with the senator's support, according to people involved at the time, Magwood was made permanent director of the program.

The coup was complete.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Magwood denied that he'd orchestrated Lash's overthrow, insisting that he had never spoken to Flint, Domenici or anyone else on the Hill about his former boss. "No, he did it all by himself," Magwood said. "The problem back in the '90s had to do with the allocation of appropriated funds. The House Appropriations Committee was very agitated about that and made a big deal out of that. That's what led to his issues."

Lash's career was effectively over.

"It does change your life," he told HuffPost. "It interferes with personal relationships, the ability to work with others who were not what you would call close, personal friends, but who were acquaintances. You could see in their mind that you have become tainted, and it just makes the whole thing less comfortable, and you never know who's doing what and who believes what at some level."

THE SPOILS

Magwood built a reputation at the Department of Energy as a sharp-elbowed operator. "He was a consummate inside player, a bureaucratic power player of the first order," recalled a former Department of Energy colleague, who, like many others interviewed for this story, requested anonymity because his current work has him interacting regularly with industry clients.

But that level of ambition is hard to contain over a long period of time in a relatively small industry. Every source to whom HuffPost spoke for this story referred to other players, whether friends or foes, by their first names. Magwood never understood it's a small world. "He always struck me as a guy who thought he was playing in a bigger political pond than he was. I mean, there are about 50 people here in town who care about nuclear energy. So it seemed like a lot of politics for no good reason," said one Democratic lobbyist who worked in the Senate while Magwood served in the Department of Energy.

Flint is known as quite the operator as well. "I am telling you this, of all the appropriations clerks, House and Senate, all of them," said a former senior Democratic aide who worked closely with him, "there was nobody as shrewd or full of guile or as politically calculating as Alex Flint. Before you would look at the tables of what you got in terms of earmarks and count 'em up, I kid you not, you'd count your fingers, and you walked out of the room."

Three other former top Democratic Senate aides interviewed for this article who worked closely with Flint described him in similar terms.

USA Nuclear regulatory scandal continues on HuffingtonPost.com

Energy-Critical Elements (ECEs) an emerging mining sub-sctor

Everyone by now knows about Rare Earth Elements (REEs) and the role they play in green energy technologies. Within the REE sector, there are a range of rare earth metals that are particularly crucial to clean energy production, including solar, wind, fuel cells and more.

The following is an excerpt from today's Energy & Capital newsletter by Nick Hodge, who himself is quoting from a recent report by the American Physical Society and Materials Research Society about “Energy Critical Elements”.

Here are some of the salient points:

Energy-related systems are typically materials intensive. As new technologies are widely deployed, significant quantities of the elements required to manufacture them will be needed. A shortage of these “energy-critical elements” (ECEs) could significantly inhibit the adoption of otherwise game-changing energy technologies.

This, in turn, would limit the competitiveness of U.S. industries and the domestic scientific enterprise and, eventually, diminish the quality of life in the United States.

The U.S. already relies on other countries for more than 90% of these elements. Some simply aren't abundant in the earth's crust; others aren't adequately concentrated.

A few are located in only a couple countries (like China), which makes their production and availability susceptible to manipulation.

Rhenium, for example, is rarer than gold by a factor of five. We need it for jet engines and industrial gas turbines.

Tellurium is quite rare, too. And without it, First Solar (NASDAQ: FSLR) couldn't make its famous thin film solar panels.

It's the high demand for these critical elements that has led to their high prices — and therefore the big market returns they've produced so far. Many more big winners are on the way from this situation.

That said, here's a list of energy critical elements and their uses as described by the report:

Gallium, germanium, indium, selenium, silver, and tellurium, all employed in advanced photovoltaic solar cells, especially thin-film photovoltaics

Dysprosium, neodymium, praseodymium, samarium (all REEs), and cobalt, used in high-strength permanent magnets for many energy-related applications, such as wind turbines and hybrid automobiles

Most REEs, valued for their unusual magnetic and/or optical properties: examples include gadolinium for its unusual paramagnetic qualities and europium and terbium for their role in managing the color of fluorescent lighting; yttrium, another REE, is an important ingredient in energy-efficient solid-state lighting

Lithium and lanthanum, used in high-performance batteries

Helium, required in cryogenics, energy research, advanced nuclear reactor designs, and manufacturing in the energy sector

Platinum, palladium, and other PGEs, used as catalysts in fuel cells that may find wide applications in transportation; cerium, a REE, is also used as an auto-emissions catalyst

Rhenium, used in high performance alloys for advanced turbines


Many potential ECEs are not found in concentrations high enough to warrant extraction as a primary product, given today’s prices. Instead, these ECEs are obtained primarily as by-products during the refining process of other primary ores, especially copper, zinc, and lead. Joint production complicates attempts to ramp up output by a large factor.

Because they are relatively scarce, many ECEs are available only in low-grade ores, which necessitates the processing of tons of rock for each gram of element recovered, sometimes in ways that do unacceptable environmental damage.


Companies producing ECEs include:

Quest Rare Minerals (AMEX: QRM)

Molycorp (NYSE: MCP)

Avalon Rare Metals (AMEX: AVL)

China Shen Zhou Mining & Resources (AMEX: SHZ)


Do your research, and happy hunting!

Trillium Power sues Ontario for $2.25 billion

A company that planned to build a series of huge wind farms in Lake Ontario is suing the provincial government for $2.25-billion, claiming it unfairly cancelled all offshore wind projects earlier this year.

Trillium Power Wind Corp. spent millions of dollars over many years planning its projects, and had dutifully followed the government’s application processes, the suit claims, but the rug was pulled from under its feet when the province said it would not consider any offshore development until more scientific studies were done.

Source: Globe and Mail, Toronto

Greenergy and Tianjin Tianbao in Philippines windfarm JV

Chinese company plans 1,000 Megawatt wind power portfolio

from Malya.com.ph:

A Chinese company has partnered with listed semiconductor firm Greenergy Holdings Inc. (formerly MUSX Corp.) for the development of a 1,000 megawatt wind energy portfolio.

Greenergy said it and Tianjin Tianbao Investment and Development Corp. of China plan to spend $1.3 billion in 10 years for the planned 1,000 MW facilities, with priority going to investing up to $200 million for wind energy projects within the first two years.

They company said the initial project would have a capacity of 49.5 MW, composed of 33 units of 1.5 MW wind mills.

Greenergy said a joint venture company would be formed as the corporate vehicle for the investments.

The first project is scheduled to come on stream within a year after the joint venture vehicle is established.

The company said that it is also looking at other renewable projects such as biomass, solar, hydro, geothermal energy, but the priority for the first two years of the joint venture vehicle would be wind energy projects.

Greenergy was established to create, design, develop and manufacture specialty semiconductor products and to market and sell these products.

The Department of Energy has awarded 236 service contracts for renewable energy sites since the Renewable Energy Law was signed in 2008. Total investment that could come from the development of these RE contracts is placed at P87.72 billion.

The resources from these sites once developed are expected to generate about 2,823 MW.

About 384 renewable energy service contracts are pending approval by the DOE. Data show that the resources at the proposed project sites, once developed, could generate 6,046 MW.

Dr. David Suzuki says wind power is path to human health

Risk-reward ratio blows older alternatives away

In Canada we are blessed to have a knowledgeable, highly respected environmentalist in the public eye, a Canadian icon with his own TV show and an unmatched reputation for fairness and accuracy. So when Suzuki touts the health benefits of wind energy, Canadians listen. Here's an article David wrote (with research assistance from Dale Marshall) for the Canadian edition of Huffington Post:

Windpower backlash an unwarranted concern

Wind energy is increasingly being considered a viable and attractive power source. Many countries, including the U.S., Germany, Spain, China, and India, are putting policies into place to drive the development of their wind energy industries. In Canada, the amount of wind energy being harnessed for use in our homes, offices, and factories has grown quickly over the past few years, led by Ontario with its Green Energy Act.

However, a backlash has been growing in many places where wind power is being developed. In Ontario, one of the main criticisms of wind development has been its impact on human health, mostly because of the noise that wind turbines produce. Yet, the peer-reviewed scientific research indicates that the sound from windmills, which generally falls into three categories (audible sound, low frequency, and infrasound), has little to no impact on human health.

This is especially true if windmills are built far enough away from residences. For example, the required setback in Ontario is 550 metres. At this distance, the audible sound from windmills has been found to be below 40 decibels, which is around the level of sound you'd find in most bedrooms and living rooms. Studies from the University of Massachusetts similarly found that even if the sound were audible, annoyance would be minimal.

Critics have also pointed to low frequency sound and infrasound as the source of health impacts from wind turbines. These are sounds that are either difficult to hear or inaudible to humans. However, Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health did a review of the scientific literature and found no evidence that low frequency sound from wind turbines causes adverse health effects.

Research from Sweden and the Netherlands may shed some light on the opposition that windmills are facing, despite the lack of evidence for human health impacts. At or just under 40 decibels, 73 per cent of people could notice the sound and six per cent were annoyed. But those who did not like windmills or found them ugly were more likely to notice the sound and were more likely to be annoyed by it.

Though we should always remain open-minded about new and emerging research on any issue, the evidence seems clear that wind turbines built with appropriate setbacks do not constitute a health hazard. And wind becomes a more attractive energy source when you consider the health impacts of the main energy alternative, burning coal and other fossil fuels.

The Canadian Medical Association estimated that in 2008 Canada's air pollution was responsible for 21,000 premature deaths, 92,000 emergency room visits, and 620,000 visits to a doctor's office. Even if you look only at the health impacts of Ontario coal-fired power plants, the numbers are significant and startling.

When considering whether Canada needs to curtail the development of its wind resources or expand wind power in the way that Ontario's Green Energy Act proposes, we should heed the conclusion of Maine's Center for Disease Control. After dismissing the notion of a moratorium on wind development due to its health impacts, the Center's Dr. Dora Ann Mills concluded, "If there is any evidence for a moratorium, it is most likely on further use of fossil fuels, given their known and common effects on the health of our population."

As for the impacts on wildlife, that's another story. But most scientific research shows that newer technologies and proper locating can overcome most of the threats to birds and bats. One recent study also noted that "the number of birds killed in wind developments is substantially lower relative to estimated annual bird casualty rates from a variety of other anthropogenic factors including vehicles, buildings and windows, power transmission lines, communication towers, toxic chemicals including pesticides, and feral and domestic cats."

It's never easy to find energy technologies that will satisfy everyone, but with the world facing ever-growing negative consequences of burning fossil fuels, we must weigh our options. In doing so, wind power comes out ahead. If we ensure that care is taken to use technologies with minimal environmental impact and to locate turbines in areas where effects on humans and animals are also minimal, there is no good reason to oppose wind power.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation climate change policy analyst Dale Marshall.

CanWEA predicts $16 billion Ontario wind energy investment

From NorthernOntarioBusiness.com :

A study commissioned by the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) predicts Ontario will see more than 80,000 person years of employment and more than $16 billion in investment over the next eight years as a result of the burgeoning wind energy industry.

The study, called The Economic Impacts of the Wind Energy Sector in Ontario 2011-2018, was conducted by ClearSky Advisors to determine the projected employment and economic benefits associated with the Ontario wind energy industry.

“The Green Energy and Economy Act and the Long-Term Energy Plan have opened up the market in Ontario for wind energy and will allow faster growth than otherwise would be the case,” Tim Wohlgemut, co-founder and principal consultant at ClearSky, said in a news release. “Ontario has been put on the global map for renewable energy development and this has the potential to create a significant number of highly skilled jobs, and attract billions in investment to the province.”

It's not indicated how much of that investment will filter into Northern Ontario; however, municipalities and landowners across the province are expected to reap about $1.1 billion in taxes and lease payments over the 20-year lifespan of the projects.

700+ Megawatts to be installed per year

On average, 709 MW will be installed per year, while the market capacity will be between 900 MW and 1,000 MW per year. The industry will create 10.5 person years of employment per MW during the construction phase and 3.6 MW for ongoing operations and maintenance.

Ontario's wind energy capacity is expected to grow from 1,428 MW of power at the end of 2010 to more than 7,100 MW by 2018. The study says this is in line with targets set out in the province's Long-Term Energy Plan.

Ashden Awards for Sustainable Energy honours Ghana project

The Ashden Awards showcase practical solutions to combat climate change and meet the energy needs of the poor, rewarding outstanding and innovative clean energy schemes across the developing world and in the United Kingdom.

Toyola Energy Limited, Ghana, was awarded the coveted Gold Award worth $340,000 in recognition of its success in making over 150,000 efficient charcoal stoves and marketing them to low-income families at very affordable prices.

Ms Sarah Butler-Sloss, Founder/Director of the Ashden Awards and Chair of the judging panel said: 93Toyola Energy Limited has taken a simple stove technology, adapted it to make it more robust and efficient and then focused it's efforts on making the stoves accessible to the poor so that they can save money and have cleaner, healthier environments to cook in.

"In the meantime Ghana's forests are protected and greenhouse emissions reduced. This is a perfect example of how much can be achieved through the use of simple, clean energy technologies and clever, pro-poor marketing strategies."

By cutting the use of charcoal by around a third, Toyola's stoves save trees, reduce carbon emissions and allow families to make considerable savings.

They are also easy to cook with and are far less smoky than the traditional charcoal stoves that can cause breathing difficulties and, often, severe eye irritation over time.

There is also 90 per cent less chance of accidental burns when using a Toyola stove as compared to traditional stoves.

By allowing the customers to buy the stoves on credit and use the money saved on charcoal to make repayments, Toyola ensures that the stoves are accessible to the poor.

"When I got the stove I was given this money box and every day I would put money in. When I eventually removed the money I had enough for the stove," Josephine Adjololo, a user said.

In a country where most urban households spend a significant proportion of their household income cooking on inefficient and polluting charcoal stoves, Toyola's success is significant.

Toyola's stoves are currently saving around 26,000 tonnes of charcoal a year, a tangible success given that charcoal comes largely from unsustainable sources.

The levels of CO2 reductions achieved - around 150,000 tonnes a year has attracted the attention of Goldman Sachs who now buys Toyola's carbon offsets and sells them on the global market.

Toyola has just opened a production centre in Togo and plans to open more centres in Benin and Sierra Leone in the next two years, stepping up sales to a further 140,000 stoves by 2013.

With facts on Ghana Energy, nearly three quarters of charcoal production in Ghana comes from unsustainable wood-charcoal, which contributes to deforestation.

Charcoal is used by approximately 1.3 million households or 31 per cent of families in Ghana.

In Accra, about 70 per cent of households use charcoal for cooking.


Winners from Pakistan, India and Africa were also announced at a VIP ceremony in London addressed by Greg Barker, UK Government Minister for Climate Change.

A statement issued and copied to Ghana News Agency in Accra on Friday said the Prince of Wales, Patron of the Ashden Awards, who personally congratulated the international winners in a meeting, said: 93The Ashden Awards show what it is possible to do now in saving resources and cutting emissions.

"They remind us how, as individuals, we can make a huge difference to the world in which we live. In a nutshell, they remind us that acting locally is, in fact, acting globally."

Source: GhanaWeb.com