The News Review:
- Engineer: Tenn. ash spill warning signs ignored
- Jacobs awarded three new contracts Los Angeles Business from …
- Paying in advance for a nuclear plant is unthinkable
Engineer: Tenn. ash spill warning signs ignored
The Associated Press
(AP) — The nation’s largest government-run utility ignored two small leaks that could have provided a warning years before a coal ash pond collapsed flooding a neighborhood with a billion gallons of sludge a former federal regulator contends. Jack Spadaro a retired mining engineer who investigated a 1972 coal waste dam break that killed 125 people in West Virginia said states have done a poor job monitoring huge ponds of coal ash which aren’t regulated by the federal government. Three homes were destroyed and 42 parcels of land damaged when one such pond at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston Steam Plant collapsed Dec. Tennessee uses solid waste landfill regulations for ash ponds even though the substance in them — a mix of water and fly ash a byproduct of coal-fired power plants — behaves more like a liquid when it spills. “State regulation has failed obviously” said Spadaro who contends the ponds should be regulated like dams. “I think there needs to be federal regulation of the fly ash and the construction of these reservoirs.
Jacobs awarded three new contracts Los Angeles Business from …
Bizjournals.com NC
Univeristy of klahomaThe university gave Jacobs a contract for design and construction phase services for its Utility Plant No. The plant a new combined chilled water steam and electricity production plant is designed to meet the growing utility needs for the campus and will be located on the campus in Norman kla. Jacobs will provide engineering and architectural design and construction administration services for the project which has an estimated price tag of $60 million. The value Jacobs’ specific contract was not disclosed.
Paying in advance for a nuclear plant is unthinkable
Tampabay.com FL
I have been in the energy industry for 40 years working for a major architect-engineering firm designing and managing the construction of plants using nuclear fossil and other energy sources. All of these power plants have been financed by the private sector normally through bond issues except for some government-funded sources such as the REA (Rural Electrification Authority) through loans or loan guarantees. To charge consumers in advance for the cost of construction of a power plant is unheard of. What were the legislators thinking when they allowed this? These nuclear plants may not go on line for eight to 10 years or longer. Furthermore no nuclear power plant has ever come in on budget therefore the monthly billing cost to the consumer will definitely increase. Lastly all the people who will be paying for the plant and have died or moved away will never reap the benefits of the supposedly lower electricity rates. Will they get a rebate? The status of our current economy would welcome a bond issue to cover the cost of these plants and be a much better and safer investment than other corporate stocks.
Related from Managementmonster: UK’s Sellafield nuclear site gets new management