Group items tagged

Future plans for energy production in the European Union as well as other locations call for a high penetration of renewable technologies (20% by 2020, and higher after 2020). The remaining energy requirements will be met by fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Smaller, less-capital intensive nuclear reactors are emerging as an alternative to fossil fuel and large nuclear systems. Approximately 50 small (<300 MWe) to medium-sized (<700 MWe) reactors (SMRs) concepts are being pursued for use in electricity and cogeneration (combined heat and power) markets. However, many of the SMRs are at the early design stage and full data needed for economic analysis or market assessment is not yet available. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop “target cost” estimates for reactors deployed in a range of competitive market situations (electricity prices ranging from 45–150 €/MWh). Parametric analysis was used to develop a cost breakdown for reactors that can compete against future natural gas and coal (with/without carbon capture) and large nuclear systems. Sensitivity analysis was performed to understand the impacts on competitiveness from key cost variables. This study suggests that SMRs may effectively compete in future electricity markets if their capital costs are controlled, favorable financing is obtained, and reactor capacity factors match those of current light water reactors. This methodology can be extended to cogeneration markets supporting a range of process heat applications.

Who’s driving us toward disaster? A radical answer would be the reliance of capitalists on the extraction and use of fossil energy. Some, however, would rather identify other culprits. The earth has now, we are told, entered “the Anthropocene”: the epoch of humanity. Enormously popular — and accepted even by many Marxist scholars — the Anthropocene concept suggests that humankind is the new geological force transforming the planet beyond recognition, chiefly by burning prodigious amounts of coal, oil, and natural gas.

The important thing to note here is the logical structure of the Anthropocene narrative: some universal trait of the species must be driving the geological epoch that is its own, or else it would be a matter of some subset of the species. But the story of human nature can come in many forms, both in the Anthropocene genre and in other parts of climate change discourse.

Giving short shrift to all the talk of a universal human evildoer, she writes, “We are stuck because the actions that would give us the best chance of averting catastrophe — and would benefit the vast majority — are extremely threatening to an elite minority that has a stranglehold over our economy, our political process, and most of our major media outlets.”

Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger published the op-ed “Global Warming Scare Tactics” in the New York Times on April 8. Participants in recent debates over climate change may recognize their names. They’re the guys who run the Breakthrough Institute, a pseudo-contrarian “environmental research organization.”

While occasionally on point in its charges against the big organizations, the essay (based on interviews with mostly white male leaders of large national groups) had nothing to say about the environmental justice movement, or other grassroots groups led by women and people of color. It neglected as well the environmental movements of the Global South, today the heart of the climate justice movement.

Is fear of disruption of what Habermas calls the life-world the sole inducer of civic action? Of course not: social movements also cohere around other shared, negotiated understandings, identities, diagnoses of problems, and assessments of opportunities. Might fear paralyze rather than mobilize? Yes: in cases when the perceived threat appears impervious to resistance, and when commitment to the cause flags over time. Fear-based campaigns require a tangible evil: a draft card, a nuclear plant cooling tower, a polluting facility’s smoke plume, an Operation Rescue picket line.

A team headed by Stanford’s Mark Z. Jacobson outlined plans for 139 nations to transition to 100 percent clean, renewable energy by the year 2050.

The shift would also allow the countries to avoid the 3 percent they now spend in their Gross Domestic Products to address the costs of air pollution — mainly in the form of higher health care spending.

The plan maps each country and the energy sources it would rely on to reach the 100 percent renewable goal. Water-bound and geologically active Iceland would get 28 percent of its power from hydroelectric sources and nearly 23 percent from geothermal. Parched and wide-open Australia would get nearly 45 percent of its power from wind farms. Poland would get nearly two-thirds of its power from the wind.