[NukeNet] Individual Action in progress, Florida Alliance update, Part 2A of 2 A&B

[Minimushomines at aol.com]

Dear, 
Nuke net, grass roots independent, environomic activist, advocates, (Twigs,  
swarmers and opposers of toadies, chameleons and people that do unmentionable  
things to swine. 
 
Part 2 A ) Pre Hearing  statement.             
 
 Comments and other input appreciated from the above mentioned social  
subgroups.
 
 
..........................................................................................................................................................
 

BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 


Re: Florida Power and Light Company’s                                  DOCKET 
NO. 070650-EL 
Petition to Determine Need for FPL Turkey  Point 
Nuclear Units 6 and 7 Electrical Power  Plant                           
Dated: January 4, 2008 
INTERVENORS BOB AND JAN KRASOWSKI’S  PREHEARING STATEMENT 
Pursuant to Order No. PSC-07-0869-PCO-EL, issued October 30,  2007, 

Intervenors, Bob and Jan  Krasowski hereby file their Prehearing Statement. 
1.      All known Witnesses. 
None. 
2.      All known exhibits. 
None at this time. Pursuant to Order No.  PSC-07-0869-PCO-EL, issued          
October 30, 2007, #IV and # VII, E, we reserve the right to present  exhibits 
at the Prehearing conference scheduled for January 14, 2008.          
3. Basic Position Statement 
A large variety of efficient resource  management as well as power management 
and generating options are available to  the utilities that service the 
residential, institutional and business energy  demands of Florida.  In assessing 
the options for meeting these energy demands we have come to  the conclusion 
that the nuclear project proposed by FP&L for Turkey Point  does not represent 
the best choice available to service FP&L customers. We  contend that when 
compared to other options and strategies the Turkey Point  6&7 proposal poses an 
extended period of economic risk that is unreasonable  and diminishes the 
economic wellbeing of FPL’s Florida customers now and in the future.  Therefore, we 
request that the petition  for determination of need for Turkey Point 6&7 be  
denied. 
FP&L’s representatives allege that the  Turkey Point 6&7 proposed project 
meets the needs criteria established by  the State of Florida in FS403.519(4) in 
that the project contributes to FPL’s  power system’s  reliability and  
integrity, it’s fuel diversity, base load generation capacity, and its effort to  
deliver adequate electricity at a reasonable cost. That it continues to be a  
viable option after any renewable energy sources and technologies or  
conservation measures that may be taken or are reasonably available to FPL that  might 
mitigate the need for the proposed generating units has been considered,  
while also providing the most cost effective source of  power. 
It is our belief, based on our research, that  the projected cost of this 
proposal as alleged by FP&L does not represent an  accurate assessment of the 
actual costs of the project. That the cost of  managing the waste associated with 
this nuclear project has not been accurately  identified.  Future costs 
attributed  to CO2 and other green house gas (GHG) emissions attributed to the 
mining,  milling, and refining of nuclear fuel have not been adequately accounted 
for.  Potential cost charged for radioactive emissions from mining and 
operations are  not mentioned. The availability and cost of water need to be  
considered. 
It is our contention that every dollar of  FP&L rate payer money (14 to 24 
Billion Dollars) proposed to be spent on the  proposed Turkey Point 6&7 nuclear 
power project could be better spent on  efficiency, conservation and 
renewables; financing programs that may include  embellishing existing or creating new 
DSM programs, leveraging through cost  sharing the expansion of net metering / 
distributive energy programs. The  integration of solar thermal and geo 
thermal applications can mitigate peak  load. The more efficient use of the 
existing base load can eliminate the need  for new base load capacity. We also see a 
slowing of growth in Florida that calls into  question the proponent’s 
projection for need. New building design criteria will  also reduce the need for new 
generation. 
4.                                      Statement of Positions and issues 
ISSUE 1:         Is there a  need for the proposed generating units, taking 
into account the need for  electric system reliability and integrity, as this 
criterion is used in Section  403.519(4), Florida Statutes? 
Position: No, the current and future  needs of Floridian’s power can be met 
with greater reliability and integrity  with the implementation of 
efficiency/conservation measures, the graduated  increased use of renewable technologies, 
a generous net metering / distributive  energy program.     
ISSUE 2:         Is  there a need for the proposed generating units, taking 
into account the need for  fuel diversity, as this criterion is used in Section 
403.519(4), Florida  Statutes? 
Position: No, distributive  generation of thermal and pv solar and gas 
capture for agriculture are preferred  methods of establishing fuel diversity over 
nuclear in the existing energy needs  environment. 
ISSUE 3:        Is  there a need for the proposed generating units, taking 
into account the need for  base-load generating capacity, as this criterion is 
used in Section 403.519(4),  Florida Statutes? 
Position: No, there already exists sufficient base-load. Future  base-load 
and current base-load can incrementally be provided and replaced by  efficiency 
and cleaner new renewable applications. Population decline and  greater 
efficiencies allow current existing base-load capacity to satisfy the  need. 
ISSUE 4:         Is  there a need for the proposed generating units, taking 
into account the need for  adequate electricity at a reasonable cost, as this 
criterion is used in Section  403.519(4), Florida Statutes?   
Position:  No, reasonable cost has not been  established here.  The cost of 
the  waste storage, CO2 and other greenhouse gases related to  fuel  assessment 
are not complete.  Water costs remain a question. We  already have adequate 
electricity.  The economic costs of insuring the risks associated with an 
unforeseen  event may be limited to FPL but extend to the overall population in the 
amount  of billions and billions of dollars and need to be considered in the 
cost/risk  assessment and in relationship to the other options. 
ISSUE 5:         Are there any renewable energy sources and technologies or  
conservation measures taken by or reasonably available to Florida Power &  
Light Company which might mitigate the need for the proposed generating  units? 
Position: Yes, (An assessment  of the meaning of the word reasonable is 
seriously necessary in regard to this  issue). Enormous opportunities for 
efficiency and conservation, distributive  energy and clean technologies exist. 
ISSUE 6:         Will  the proposed generating units provide the most 
cost-effective source of power,  as this criterion is used in Section 403.519(4), 
Florida Statutes?  
Position: No, this project’s  costs must be compared with an equal amount of 
analysis to a renewable/  efficiency option. The proposed nuclear project time 
line extends over a period  that would allow the monies dedicated to the 
project to incrementally provide  for FPL customer energy needs by the use of 
efficiency programs, elevated  standards of power usage and investments in clean 
energy technologies, without  the costly, problematic issues of long term toxic 
waste management, among other  things.  
ISSUE 7:         Based on the resolution of the foregoing issues, should the 
Commission  grant Florida Power & Light Company’s petition to determine the 
need for the  proposed generating units? 
Position:  No 
ISSUE 8:         Should this docket be closed? 
Position: Yes, this docket should be closed and  FPL’s petition denied   
due to the lack of adequate  analysis of all reasonable options and the   
extreme risk and inability to  project accurate costs which in turn stifles the 
development and investment in  efficiency and new clean technologies



**************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.     
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.energyjustice.net/pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20080107/a4e38eab/attachment.html