CLEAN ENERGY

CLEAN ENERGY JOBS

According to the industry advocate Nuclear Energy Institute, a nuclear power plant''s peak employment is 2,400 construction workers during the plant construction, leveling off to only 400 to 700 permanent employees.

By contrast, Energy Efficiency can create 220,000 jobs to replace each of these new 1000 MW nuclear plants, and at half the cost, according to The Energy Collective and Energy Savvy. In the article, "A Ticking Atomic Clock: Nuclear Power vs. Efficient Homes", the industry-neutral group Energy Savvy crunches the numbers and addresses caveats and criticisms.

Retrofitting homes and buildings to be more energy efficient creates local jobs with no need for nuclear security clearances or specialized training. These are local construction jobs that can begin now, if utility companies have the foresight to fund Energy Efficiency Programs rather than making contracts with international nuclear contractors..

Another advantage to the job-creating benefits of energy efficiency programs is that they reduce utility bills, since they require only half the cost of building and operating a 1000 MW nuclear plant – and they require no fuel and create no pollutants.

This is the first line of action in the 21st Century approach to energy – getting more for your money by using your existing energy well.

For half the cost of one 1000 MW nuclear plant,

Energy Efficiency Programs

can reduce utility bills for 1.6 million families

and create 90 times more jobs

- that's 220,000 jobs instead of 2,400.

For more information on this infographic or EnergySavvy, visit www.energysavvy.com/programs/

This educational graphic was created by a company called Energy Savvy. In the following sections, 'Crunching the Numbers' and 'Caveats and Criticism,' they explain the graphic's math and the issues:

Crunching the Numbers

To be clear, we at EnergySavvy are not anti-nuclear. We’re not pro-nuclear either. We’re just presenting the numbers in way that we hope can inform the national discussion.

In this comparison, a new nuclear power plant is expected to last 40 years and produce at the U.S. average of 12.3 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. The levelized cost of electricity for a new nuclear plant that we’re using is 8.4 cents per kWh, which includes the cost of financing, building and operating the plant for 40 years. The total cost for this plant and its power for 40 years is $41 billion.

Instead, if you want to retrofit enough houses to eliminate the need for 12.3 billion kWh per year, the calculation works like this: A typical electrically heated U.S. home uses 20,000 kWh per year, which can be reduced by 30% with a $12,000 energy retrofit, based on various industry estimates. You’d need to retrofit just over 1.6 million homes to equal the entire annual energy production of a nuclear power plant, for a total cost of just under $20 billion. Home energy efficiency improvements in electrically heated homes include upgrading the efficiency of the electric heating system, insulating and making air sealing improvements to the home’s building envelope, using solar hot water heating systems and replacing inefficient A/C units and appliances.

Job creation, in each case, looks like this: At peak construction, building a nuclear power plant would employ as many as 2,400 workers, eventually leveling out at around 400 to 700 long-term employees. For the home retrofits: According to Matt Golden, Policy Chair for Efficiency First, retrofitting 1,600,000 homes in a year would create roughly 220,000 jobs.

Caveats and Criticism

Of course, this kind of rough analysis uses many assumptions and can be subject to many criticisms. Let the discussion ensue:

What about the cost of storing nuclear waste forever? While the operating cost of a nuclear power plant includes the storage of spent nuclear fuel during its 40-year operational life, the cost of safely storing that fuel for thousands of years afterwards is not included in this analysis. If it were even possible to estimate, the relative cost effectiveness of home retrofits would look much, much better.

How do you really know what a new power plant will cost? We’re pretty solid on the home retrofit cost statistics, but the nuclear power plant cost calculations have a lot more uncertainty. Nuclear power plants typically take around ten years to build, so estimating the true cost is nearly impossible given fluctuating material prices, cost of capital and other unforeseen costs. Cost overruns for a nuclear reactor have averaged nearly 300 percent. The last nuclear power plant to go online broke ground in 1973 and wasn’t finished until 1996.

Why are we picking on electrically-heated homes? Thirty percent of U.S. homes (according to EIA’s 2005 statistics) use electricity for heating. Many more use natural gas or heating oil, and most energy efficiency efforts focus on achieving efficiencies with those fuels. The impending nuclear power plant “retirement boom” provides a great opportunity to think about getting more efficient with electrically heated homes.

Don’t nuclear power plants last longer than new furnaces? Nuclear plants have 40 year operational leases and can be extended for an additional 20 years. Different energy efficiency measures have different measure lives – LED light bulbs last less than 10 years, insulation and new furnaces can last for 30 years or more. For simplicity’s sake, we’re treating the measure lives of each option equally at 40 years.

This is a lot of houses we’re talking about. Yes. If we want to avoid replacing some or all of the nuclear power plants that are going to reach the end of their operational lives within the next 20 years, we have to start retrofitting houses at volume now so we’re ready when plants need to start shutting down.

Who pays for either of these two options? That’s a pretty complicated question and it certainly involves issues of rates and cost recovery within the utility regulatory field. We’re making the argument that investing in efficiency might be a better use of a utility’s resources than fully paying to build new nuclear power plants. Some innovative utilities are developing energy efficiency models that are increasingly cost effective, and work well for their shareholders and regulatory frameworks.

In the end, we don’t believe that any of these assumptions invalidate our conclusion that our country would be far better off increasing the efficiency of our housing stock through home retrofits over the next 20 years than replacing all our aging nuclear power plants. We can meet this impending energy challenge with half of the cost, create far more jobs and enjoy all the side benefits that come with going the retrofit route: healthier and more comfortable homes, lower utility bills for homeowners than what they would have paid, no increased burden of storing spent nuclear fuel for thousands of years.
http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/2011/07/13/ticking-atomic-clock-nuclear-power-vs-efficient-homes/

ENERGY EFFICIENCY & DEMAND RESPONSE

"Energy efficiency is the 'first fuel' in the race for clean and secure energy resources", according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACE³ funded by the DOE and EPA). "Faced with rapidly increasing energy prices, constraints in energy supply and transmission, and energy reliability concerns, states are turning to energy efficiency as the most reliable, cost-effective, and quickest resource to deploy."

A team of researchers at Georgia Tech and Duke University published a study, Energy Efficiency in the South, on April 12, 2010. The gatech.edu newsroom reports the study found that in only one decade, aggressive Energy Efficiency programs in the South can:

"lower utility bills by $41 billion,

create 380,000 new jobs,

reduce the need for new power plants, and

save 8.6 billion gallons of freshwater by 2020."

Nothing could be more modern than to use existing resources wisely. TVA''s Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Plan (EEDR) proposes long and short term plans to reduce power demand growth by providing efficiency opportunities to residential, business and industrial consumer groups, according to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Bellefonte published in May of 2010. By 2012, TVA's plan proposes to reduce summer peak demand by 1,400 megawatts, reaching 2,700 MW by 2019. This corresponds to energy reductions of approximately 1,800 GWh by 2012 and 5,200 GWh by 2019.

This plan increases TVA's commitment to EEDR from 1% to 6% by 2019, a paltry improvement given over 50% savings potential. TVA can do better. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACE³) National Scorecard on Energy Efficiency Programs – in 2005, Tennessee and Alabama ranked last in the nation in residential energy efficiency. This was probably due to our poor construction, insulation, and appliance inefficiency. Tennessee ranked 57% less efficient than California, 54% less efficient than New York, and 30% less efficient than the average U.S. resident.

We call on the TVA to raise its EEDR commitment for 2019 from 6% to 30%. The Tennessee Valley has shown it is capable of rising to the efficiency of the rest of the country. From 2005 to 2007, TVA increased efficiency enough to move their ranking from 50th (of 50 states) to 46th; and in one year, 2007, Tennessee initiated a program that moved their efficiency ranking from 46th to 38th in the nation, saving 63,547 MWh of electricity – in just one year.

Using the TVA estimation of 5,200 GWh savings by 2019 with a 6% efficiency improvement, then a 30% (6% x 5) EEDR improvement would achieve 26,000 GWh (5,200 x 5) savings by 2019.

26,000 GWh savings by 2019 meets all the 22,000 GWh additional capacity needs claimed by TVA, removing any justification for building additional expensive and dangerous nuclear reactors in our valley.

Here are the most recent figures on average monthly energy consumption from the U.S. Energy Information Administration – Independent Statistics and Analysis, Table 5. Average Monthly Bill by Census Division, and State 2008 (Report Released: January 2010):

Average Monthly Consumption (kWh)

Residential Commercial Industrial

U.S. Total Avg. 920 6,339 108,567

Tennessee 1,302 5,324 1,305,467

Clearly, there is room for energy efficiency improvement, especially in industrial electricity usage. A program to encourage combined heat to power (CHP) co-generation to recycle wasted heat (heat that just goes up industrial and utility smoke stacks) would generate electricity at very high efficiencies. If TVA spent our money wisely, by funding programs to increase efficiency – our environment, our economy, and the people of the Tennessee Valley would all benefit.

Several of the world''s leading renewable energy experts concur in saying, "Energy efficiency and renewable energy should be front and center in any campaign to address environmental pollution and climate change..." (see above chart and the brief Environmental Science & Technology comment/article by Benjamin K. Sovacool, Patrick Parenteau, M.V. Ramana, Scott V. Valentine, Mark Z. Jacobson, Mark A. Delucchi, Mark Diesendorf). The comment was in response to an article claiming that nuclear power is an effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The lifecycle cost/ratio, illustrated in the right column of their chart, shows wind to be 96 times more effective than nuclear power in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, CSP thermal solar to be more than 20 times more effective, hydroelectric nearly 18 times, and PV photovoltaic solar to be nearly twice as effective as nuclear in displacing carbon for the money invested. They conclude by saying that renewable and efficiency not only reduce more carbon per dollar spent, they also provide faster climate protection.

Climate Change and environmental pollution are two major challenges of our century. While solid science shows us the path of action includes a rapid expansion of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, dirty energy interests in oil, coal and nuclear are deeply entrenched in our economy and culture, so we tend to accept the slick, well funded propaganda. Compared to nuclear, renewables and efficiency are cost effective beyond measure – because they do not produce ionizing radioactive pollutants that must be safely secured from terrorists, secured from severe weather events, and the highly corrosive radiation must be secured from leakage into the environment for thousands of years.

Science is showing us a way to improve our economy, to disengage from our dependence on middle eastern oil regimes, to stimulate new industries that produce truthfully clean energy, and to reduce toxic pollutants in our environment. It falls to us to persuade our Congress to listen to the science and to choose a path of sustainable progress for our country.

This U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report on different renewable energy technologies (July 2012) found the total U.S. potential for renewable energy to be 212,224 GW (gigawatt) in Capacity and 481,800 TWh (terawatt) of Generation Potential (Table ES-1.). In the past, many questioned whether renewable technologies would be reliable and affordable, but now they have proven to be both. Since 2010, solar electricity from new installations has become cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear plants and that trend is expected to continue for at least another decade. In Tennessee, NREL found the total estimated technical potential for rural utility-scale photovoltaic power to be 1,267 GW or 2.2 million GWh in Tennessee; 2,115 GW or 3.7 million GWh in Alabama;' and 3,088 GW or 5.4 million GWh in Georgia.

The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University and the Institute of Transportation Studies at University of California at Davis have just released a study, "Energy Policy: Providing All Global Energy with Wind, Water and Solar power", which lays out a path to sustainable energy for the planet in two parts. Please download this quality study, which shows us how we can live in comfort on our planet without destroying it.

"Energy Policy: Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power,

Part 1: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials"

Download Part 1 here http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf

"Energy Policy: Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power,

Part 2: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies"

Download Part 2 here http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt2.pdf

John O. Blackburn, Sam Cunningham, "Solar and Nuclear Costs – The Historic Crossover: Solar Energy is Now the Better Buy," for NC Warn: Waste Awareness & Reduction Network, July 2010.

When U.S. solar energy development is compared to Germany's, one must wonder what controls our energy priorities. Germany is quite a bit smaller and its climate is cloudier and colder than most of the U.S., yet Germany and many countries are leaping ahead of us in clean energy development. Dirty energy advocates blame this disparity on the German government's solar subsidies, but this Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study provides the actual reasons for the disparities in prices. As the right column of the chart below indicates, a major cause of cost disparity apparently comes down to greed. It is true that solar tax incentives are high in Germany and the wages are lower (not counting their universal health coverage), but the disproportionately high profit margin in the U.S. appears to be slowing our solar development.

NREL Study Suggests we can add more Solar Thermal and Wind Energy to the Grid

Study finds Solar and Wind can provide 35% of the America's electricity, using our existing National grid, without adding new backup systems. Critics of renewable energy have argued that it only works during certain hours and conditions, and that we would need to build backup infrastructure; however, this study refutes that argument.

The U.S. Department of Energy''s National Renewable Energy Laboratory study suggests 35% of America's electricity can come from wind and solar power, "without adding expensive new backup power plants."

We can create electricity, far more safely and less expensively, with renewable energy, rather than with expensive and dangerous nuclear power plants.

Solar Thermal Magazine, 5/31/2010

Some scientists say we can achieve 100% renewable capability with a national smart grid using wind and solar power. (see Robert Kennedy article below)

THERMAL SOLAR PLANT

“Resource calculations show that just seven states in the U.S. southwest could provide more than 7 million MW of solar generating capacity - roughly 10 times the total U.S. generating capacity from all sources today,” according to a report from the Center for American Progress and Worldwide Institute.

http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/content_display.cfm/seqnumber_content/3070.htm

Thermal solar power plants are much less expensive than PV or nuclear. Cost estimates are $1-2 Billion per 1000 MW, compared to $8-12 Billion for nuclear. No brainer.

PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR PLANT

Largest PV Solar Power Plant Opens In FL... The Desoto Utility project cost $150 million to build, providing 25 megawatts, supplying power to just 3,000 homes, a sliver of the 4 million-plus accounts served by the state’s largest electric utility.

Overall, the U.S. still trails other nations in building photovoltaic plants.

Spain and Germany have made larger per capita commitments to solar power because of aggressive government policies… And China has announced plans to pay up to 50% of the price of solar power systems larger than 500 megawatts.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/largest-solar-power-plant-opens-in-fl

NOTE: Photovoltaic solar is less expensive than nuclear, without emissions and ongoing costs of radioactive transport, storage, and security. A 1200 megawatt PV solar plant, of a larger but similar design to the Florida plant, would cost $7.5 billion dollars (vs. $8-12 billion nuclear) – with no worry of radioactive waste.

ROBERT KENNEDY TOUTS NATIONAL

SMART ELECTRIC GRID WITH WIND AND SOLAR FOR 100% U.S. ELECTRIC

Robert Kennedy Jr. at UTC, February 2009, synopsis:

Wind now is competitive with coal. With a national electrical grid in place, there's enough wind in 4 states (Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming and Texas) to replace all electric power in America including electric cars, which charge overnight during off-peak hours.

And there' is enough sun coming into the American Southwest to provide all electric power in America, including electric cars. One "Solar Farm" in the desert, such as the SES plants in California and Arizona, heats turbines and can equal the energy output of a 1000 MW nuclear power plant. A 1000 MW nuclear power plant is estimated at $8-10 Billion, whereas a 1000 MW thermal solar plant is estimated at $1-2 Billion – with no dangerous emissions.

A U.S. SMART GRID ($180 billion) to both transport nationally and store electricity when needed, could totally eliminate COAL and NUCLEAR – distributing clean electricity created by wind / sun with NO CO2 emissions, and charging electric cars overnight to eliminate our dependance on foreign oil. If we end our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, those funds would pay for a national smart grid in only 6 years.

Entrepreneurs would pay for the Wind Farms and Mirror/Sun Farms, and utilities would invest in the smart grid. IF the U.S. government is smart enough to see this opportunity and support it.

Additional Reading:

Yes We Can: Southern Solutions for a National Renewable Energy Standard prepared by the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE), Feb. 2009

Winning Our Energy Independence: An Energy Insider Shows How

by S. David Freeman, President Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners,

former Chairman, Tennessee Valley Authority (Gibbs Smith, 2007)

"SOME FACTS ABOUT NUCLEAR, SOLAR AND WIND POWER", from the 4th edition of Environmental Science: Earth as a Living Planet by Edward A. Keller, Professor of Geology, (University of California, Santa Barbara, 2001).

Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy, by Dr. Arjun Makhijani, order this 2008 book or download it free.

DIMINISHING FUEL SUPPLIES

In his paper "Some Facts About Nuclear, Solar and Wind Power", E.A. Keller, Professor of Geology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, illuminates the unreasonable expectations for nuclear energy:

"Today there are 104 commercial nuclear power plants in the U.S. These produce about 20 percent of our electricity. About 440 nuclear power plants supply about 16% of the world's electricity. All these plants use uranium 235, which makes up only 0.7% of natural uranium. In a U-235 power plant, only 1% of the energy is recovered; the rest is nuclear (radioactive) waste."

If this were not a strong enough case in itself, Keller goes on to say that if we built enough nuclear power plants to, "provide about 40% of the present use of fossil fuels, all known uranium deposits would be mined and used in about 30 years."

“Shell estimates that after 2015

supplies of easy-to-access oil and (natural) gas

will no longer keep up with demand.”

– Jeroem van de Veer, CEO of Shell Oil Company

"Gas production has peaked in North America."

– Lee Raymond, CEO of ExxonMobile Corporation

“Human activity is putting such strain

on the natural functions of Earth

that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems

to sustain future generations

can no longer be taken for granted.”

– United Nations “Millennium Ecosystem Assessment”

http://www.wakeupamerika.com/PDFs/On-American-Sustainability.pdf

Climate change, pollution, and energy insecurity

are among the greatest problems of our time.

Addressing them requires major changes

in our energy infrastructure.

Here, we analyze the feasibility of providing

worldwide energy for all purposes

(electric power, transportation, heating/cooling, etc.)

from wind, water, and sunlight (WWS).

– Mark Z. Jacobson, Mark A Delucchi,

"Energy Policy:

Providing All Global Energy

with Wind, Water, and Solar Power"

(Elsevier Ltd., 2010)

"Energy Policy: Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part 1: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials"

Download Part 1 here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf

"Energy Policy: Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part 2: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies"

Download Part 2 here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt2.pdf

IN THE NEXT DECADE . . .

Solar Power Plant to Orbit Earth

Capturing sunlight via an orbiting platform and beaming electrical power to Earth has the potential to supply endless energy, help stave off climate change and avoid future conflicts over oil, according to a new study led by the National Security Space Office, Department of Defense. Former astronaut Buzz Aldrin chairs the spaceflight advocacy group ShareSpace Foundation. The consensus of 170 collaborating experts worldwide estimates that in a single year, satellites in a continuously sunlit orbit could generate an amount of energy nearly equivalent to the total energy available in global oil reserves. Mark Hopkins, senior vice president of the National Space Society, maintains that making this one move could transform the United States into an energy-exporting nation. “It is the largest energy option available to us today…more power potentially than all of the other power sources combined,” says Hopkins. For years, technology and cost hurdles stood in the way. Now Charles Miller, director of Space Frontier Foundation, believes that with the proper public and private support, the space-based solar power industry could take off within 10 years.

Scientists Say Ocean Currents Can Power the World

A revolutionary device that can harness energy from slow-moving rivers could provide enough power for the entire world, scientists claim.

The technology can generate electricity in water flowing at a rate of less than one knot, about one mile an hour - meaning it could operate on most waterways around the globe. Systems could be sited on river beds or suspended in the ocean. The scientists behind the technology, which has been developed in research funded by the US government, say that generating power in this way would potentially cost only around 3.5p per kilowatt hour, compared to about 4.5p for wind energy and between 10p and 31p for solar power. The technology would require up to 50 times less ocean acreage than wave power generation…. "If we could harness 0.1 per cent of the energy in the ocean, we could support the energy needs of 15 billion people." Because the parts only oscillate slowly, the technology is likely to be less harmful to aquatic wildlife than dams or water turbines, and there's less interference with shipping, fishing and tourism.

ALGAE (not Corn) for BIO-FUEL and REVERSAL of GLOBAL WARMING
Algae multiplies so quickly and produces so much oxygenper square foot that ponds with a total surface area fivetimes the size of Colorado (1994 data) would be enough tostart reversing our growing CO2 problem. Corn nets 81gallons bio-diesel / acre. Soy nets 41 gallons / acre. Algaeyields as high as 20,000+ gallons / acre. Enough biodieselto replace all petroleum transportation fuels could begrown in 9.5 million acres – far less than the 450 millionacres for US crop farming, and over 500 million acres forfarm animal grazing. Approx. $308 billion would buildsufficient algae farms to move the US from dependence onforeign oil. Thereafter, the operating costs would equateto $46.2 billion per year to replace the $250+ billion wespend yearly on crude oil from foreign countries. Notcounting the annual $40 billion the US governmentspends in defense of mideast oil. And Algae REVERSES GLOBAL WARMING!
www.Algae4oil.com &www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

You Can Buy Green: Wind, Biomass and Solar Energy

Sort Of – TVA does have some programs to appease us

TVA knows the long term advantages of renewable energy, both financially and for the health of our citizens and environment. Unfortunately, the present Board of Directors doesn''t seem to care too much about our health and is rubber stamping TVA Executive Management deals with multi-national nuclear contractors, even though it means more radioactive waste in our valley and far fewer jobs than Energy Efficient Programs.

They did initiate a Green Power Switch program in 2000 to encourage on-site generation of renewable power. For $4 per month, consumers in the valley can pay for 150 kilowatt blocks of green energy to let TVA know that consumers want them to go green. By 'purchasing' just one block per month, you can show your commitment to support green energy in the Tennessee Valley, but we also recommend that you sign our letter to the TVA Board of Directors to let them know specifically what they need to be doing to keep valley residents safe as well as supplied with affordable electricity.

http://www.tva.com/greenpowerswitch/green_mainfaq.htm

Under this program, "Generation Partners offers homeowners and businesses financial incentives for qualifying solar, wind, biomass and small hydroelectric systems – less than 1 megawatt. TVA pays each new participant $1,000 to offset startup costs and agrees to buy 100 percent of the green power they produce. TVA will pay the retail rate, plus any fuel cost adjustment, plus a 12-cent premium per kilowatt-hour for solar and 3 cents per kilowatt-hour for wind, biomass and hydro."

http://www.tva.com/news/releases/janmar10/homegrown_power.html

TVA's Generation Partners program began in 2003 and by 2009 had avoided 497 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil power plants and produced 547,877 kilowatt-hours of renewable energy.

We do not need to live with the dangers of nuclear power, but we must make our voices heard. TVA knows that an aggressive Energy Efficiency program will eliminate the need for any nuclear power in our valley. Unfortunately, the present board of the TVA is choosing to partner with AREVA (which is 90% owned by the French Government), to spend billions of dollars on building a 1968 designed nuclear reactor at Bellefonte - instead of choosing a path of honest and truthfully clean energy that leaves no nuclear waste for future generations. TVA could create over a hundred thousand local construction jobs in the south that would begin now with Energy Efficiency programs, instead of fouling our valley by adding to over 7 million pounds of highly radioactive fuel sitting by our Tennessee River right now.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Contact Your Elected Representatives

Sign a Letter to the NRC

Sign a Letter to TVA

Join BEST /MATRR - Because It Matters

Print our 'check'' voucher and send it in with your electric bill payment.

Support Green Legislation in Your State.

Send a link to your friends

so they can learn about energy at MATRR.org.

Bellefonte Efficiency & Sustainability Team

BEST

Mothers Against Tennessee River Radiation

MATRR

Because It Matters

You are encouraged to copy our written material,

but please credit all referenced sources.

Compare Carbon/Cost