Group items tagged

Frank Barnaby and James Kemp, with a foreword by David Howarth MP, July 2007 Supporters of nuclear power claim that the security risks can be managed. However, this briefing paper clearly shows that a worldwide nuclear renaissance is beyond the capacity of the nuclear industry to deliver and would stretch to breaking point the capacity of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to monitor and safeguard civil nuclear power. Even a failed terrorist attack on one of the first new builds would most probably cause subsequent new build to halt in many countries. If this happened, the authors argue that governments would need to again review energy policy - minus civil nuclear power - further delaying progress towards a sustainable and secure energy policy and possibly causing the UK and other countries to miss the window of opportunity to tackle climate change. This briefing paper is one of a series of reports and factsheets published as part of ORG's Secure energy project.
Availability Download as a PDF   http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/toohottothandle

Fifteen years ago, the owner of the Prairie Island nuclear plant in Red Wing was in the fight of its life to continue producing electricity there. The company's request to expand its radioactive waste storage dominated the Legislature for months. Today Xcel Energy is well on its way toward receiving a 20-year extension of Prairie Island's license, and some legislators want to open the state to more nuclear power.

I have previously discussed the non-job-creating $50 billion in nuclear loan guarantees the Senate put into the stimulus (see "Can Obama stop the nuclear bomb in the Senate stimulus plan?" For the record it was Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT), which I point out merely because R-UT perfectly describes thinking behind this farce. Not only won't these loans generate any jobs in Obama's first term, but as Peter Bradford, former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, explained to me, it could actually kill jobs. How?

In this third segment of my review of William Tucker's outstanding book Terrestrial Energy, I consider Tucker's assessment of available opportunities to solve the nuclear waste problem by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Recycling Opportunities If U.S. nuclear power plants were to resume reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, as is done in France and other nations, only 2 to 3 percent of the material now scheduled to be stored at the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository would have to be stored there, and the whole nuclear waste problem would disappear. After reprocessing, the total unusable portion of three full years of nuclear power production can be stored indefinitely in a dry cask about four times the size of a telephone booth.

In a triumph for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed sweeping legislation Friday that calls for the nation's first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, yet more costly energy. The vote was 219-212, capping months of negotiations and days of intense bargaining among Democrats. Republicans were overwhelmingly against the measure, arguing it would destroy jobs in the midst of a recession while burdening consumers with a new tax in the form of higher energy costs. At the White House, Obama said the bill would create jobs, and added that with its vote, the House had put America on a path toward leading the way toward "creating a 21st century global economy."

Some nuclear utilities, like Duke, also have major investments in coal-fired plants uncorkedThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uncorked its long expected policy statement that formally declares carbon dioxide and five other green house gases to be pollutants that are a threat to public health and the environment. The action comes in response to an April 2007 Supreme Court ruling related to pollution from cars and trucks. Government scientists have long been unanimous that these gases caused harm, but the Bush administration bottled up their findings and took no action. According to the New York Times, EPA said the science supporting the proposed endangerment finding was "compelling and overwhelming."