Group items tagged

"OVER THE last century, burning coal has been a sensible way to produce electrical power. Coal is cheap, plentiful, and we do not have to import it from abroad. There is still enough coal right here in the United States to make electricity for centuries to come. There is, however, a nagging problem with continued use of coal. We seem to have finally reached a point of crisis, in which the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels, such as coal and oil, may be altering the atmospheric chemistry in disadvantageous, irreversible ways. But a durable, fully developed alternative to coal already exists. Prototype plants to replace coal have already been built and have been subjected to more than 60 years of testing and refinement. The fuel for these plants is cheap and available domestically or on the highly competitive world market. France, a country that lacks our berth of economic resources, has already implemented this plan, which is nuclear power. "

On October 29, ELI will hold the principal policy event of its 40th anniversary year, the ELI-Miriam Hamilton Keare Policy Forum. The topic this year will explore whether expanded use of nuclear power and coal is inevitable in our climate-constrained future, and if so, how best to manage them. This issue has gained greater salience in recent years, as advances in technology promise a new generation of safer nuclear reactors and the possibility of sequestering coal emissions. In 2007, Sir Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace, proclaimed that nuclear power is essential to combating climate change. Producers of coal maintain that it is impossible to ignore the most-abundant fossil fuel -- and that it can compete with lower-carbon energy sources. The Hon. Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, will be among the panelists participating in the Forum. Representing an entirely different viewpoint, Wellinghoff once told reporters, "we may not need any, ever," referring to new coal and nuclear power plants. State regulators, meanwhile, are responsible to ratepayers and pollution control mandates. Environmental organizations have mostly opposed expanded use of both energy sources, but that opinion is by no means monolithic.

On October 29, ELI will hold the principal policy event of its 40th anniversary year, the ELI-Miriam Hamilton Keare Policy Forum. The topic this year will explore whether expanded use of nuclear power and coal is inevitable in our climate-constrained future, and if so, how best to manage them. This issue has gained greater salience in recent years, as advances in technology promise a new generation of safer nuclear reactors and the possibility of sequestering coal emissions. In 2007, Sir Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace, proclaimed that nuclear power is essential to combating climate change. Producers of coal maintain that it is impossible to ignore the most-abundant fossil fuel -- and that it can compete with lower-carbon energy sources. The Hon. Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, will be among the panelists participating in the Forum. Representing an entirely different viewpoint, Wellinghoff once told reporters, "we may not need any, ever," referring to new coal and nuclear power plants. State regulators, meanwhile, are responsible to ratepayers and pollution control mandates. Environmental organizations have mostly opposed expanded use of both energy sources, but that opinion is by no means monolithic.

The proposed nuclear reactor is going to cost Bruce Power a lot of money. Guess again. The private sector does not invest in nuclear power - for good reason: the public will be on the hook for many generations for the biggest part of the costs. Nuclear power plants are usually over budget and start up behind schedule. If power is needed in the meantime, we will have to purchase elsewhere. It would be 10 years or likely more before a nuclear plant starts producing electricity. Construction of power grids to export to possibly Alberta and the U.S. will be a large expense - estimated at $1 billion, again largely at public expense. Power backup for both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and refurbishing is necessary. Note that eight nuclear power plants were once shut down for a whole decade in Ontario. The UDP report says that nuclear is compatible with 'clean' coal. It better be, as coal will be required when the huge, equally highly centralized nuclear system goes down. Note that there is not an operational clean coal plant on the planet. $1.4 billion plus of our money is being spent on an experimental project to produce only 100 MW of clean coal power. What if it does not work or is too costly to expand? Where does the backup power come from? Old dirty coal that will cost us in carbon charges?

Increased use of nuclear (an outright competitor to coal as a deliverer of baseload power) is essential to combat climate change The location for this year's Camp for Climate Action - outside the Kingsnorth power station in Kent - was well chosen: it is here that E.ON wants to build the first new coal-fired plant in the UK in nearly 30 years. With coal the most global-warming-intensive fuel on the market, and six more coal plants in the pipeline if Kingsnorth gets the go-ahead, there is a clear line to be drawn in the sand.

"If we take seriously the protection of human health we have to phase out coal and nuclear-powered electricity. Ontario's coal plants kill hund re d s of people and trigger thousands of illnesses (e. g., asthma attacks) annually. Coal is also the most climate-destructive fuel around, emitting twice as much carbon as natural gas does. Whether the issue is respiratory disease or global warming, coal is a catastrophe. But nuclear is extremely unhealthy as well. A scientific review by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment found all functioning reactors release radioactive materials on a routine basis. A 2008 German government study showed children (younger than five) living within five kilometres of a nuclear plant are at elevated risk for leukemia. And Scientific American recently reported nukes harm the climate: "Nuclear power results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions than wind energy, when reactor construction and uranium refining and transport are considered." But to phase out conventional power we need to use less energy and switch over to renewables, including wind turbines. "

"Nuclear power is more competitive than coal-fired power stations without carbon capture and gas-fired power stations when the cost of borrowing is low and carbon prices are around $30 a metric ton, the International Energy Agency said Thursday. However, with the same carbon price, if the finance costs are higher, then coal without carbon capture equipment, coal with carbon capture and gas power plants are the cheapest forms of electricity, the IEA said in a report on the projected costs of generating electricity."

"If we take seriously the protection of human health, we have to phase out coal- and nuclear-powered electricity. Coal kills hundreds of Ontarians and triggers more than 100,000 illnesses (e.g., asthma attacks) annually. It is also the most climate-destructive fuel around, emitting twice as much carbon as natural gas does. Whether the issue is respiratory disease or global warming, coal is a catastrophe. But nuclear is extremely unhealthy as well. A scientific review by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment found all functioning reactors release radioactive materials on a routine basis. A 2008 German government study showed children (younger than five) living within five kilometres of a nuclear plant are at elevated risk for leukemia. And Scientific American recently reported nukes harm the climate: "Nuclear power results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions than wind energy, when reactor construction and uranium refining and transport are considered.""

Texas Must Not Let Nuclear, Coal Power Take Priority on State's Renewable Energy Transmission Lines Cost and Safety of Nuclear and 'Clean' Coal Plants Is Questionable, Could Take Resources Away from Wind, Solar Initiatives, Coalition Says AUSTIN, TEXAS - The Texas Public Utility Commission (PUCT) should not give nuclear plants or "clean" coal plants priority on the "new renewable energy superhighways" as part of its decision on the state's competitive renewable energy zones (CREZ), according to a coalition of consumer and environmental groups in a petition filed today with the commission.

President-elect Barack Obama's next senior science adviser, Harvard academic and vociferous climate change advocate John Holdren, is a proponent for clean coal and advanced nuclear energy, according to his previous speeches and policy work. But the types of coal and nuclear generation that Holdren advocates is years away from commercial development, and it's questionable whether he will encourage near-term private-sector expansion of the two sectors. Obama Saturday named the head of the Harvard Kennedy School's Science, Technology, Public Policy Program at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs as his next Assistant to the President for Science and Technology.

The federal government used the throne speech to promise it will switch Canadians on to clean energy by balancing the need for power with climate change. To achieve that goal, it pledged to ensure 90% of all Canada's electricity comes from "non-emitting sources" such as hydro, nuclear, clean coal and wind by 2020. "The key is nuclear and also other clean energy sources," Environment Minister Jim Prentice said. "Clean coal is a part of that. We need to see improvements in terms of technology there, but this is a realistic objective." Environmentalists, however, say describing energy sources such as nuclear and coal as clean is misleading.

S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford cited expectations of tougher environmental regulations, rising coal prices and a weak economy Wednesday as he came out against a state-owned utility's plan to build a $1.25 billion coal-fired plant. Sanford said Obama administration rules on mercury emissions and expected caps on carbon dioxide emissions would double the plant's cost. Meanwhile, Sanford said, dire predictions of brownouts during the next decade won't play out because the economy won't grow fast enough to create demand at the heart of arguments for building the plant near Florence. And, Sanford said, coal prices have nearly tripled from projections used to justify the plant.

I was once an anti-nuclear activist. I have researched this in detail. First, coal, right now, puts 5 times the tonnage of raw uranium ore into the air than is mined each year worldwide. Think about where Marie Curie got her radium, uranium isn't the only radioactive in coal. (I can supply the calculations based on citation of coal ash extraction studies done for China.) We have been putting tons of uranium (including the highly radioactive fraction) into the air for hundreds of years. Second, the hot spots in cities today are not nuclear power plants, but hospitals. If you want radioactives, that is where you are exposed to them. Three Mile Island was nothing compared to the radiation released every year by hospitals. But this is therapeutic use.

Chairman and CEO of Progress Energy Jeff Lyash acknowledges that we must address America's power demands as they pertain to economic and environmental issues. His solution is clean coal and more nuclear power. Fossil fuels should be short term bridge to clean, renewable energy sources. But make no mistake, there is no such thing as clean coal and nuclear power is neither clean nor cheap.

Coal and nuclear power could cost 30% more per year by 2025 than energy from concentrating solar and hot dry rock geothermal power, according to DESERTEC-Australia. "Concentrating solar power costs are falling rapidly. Geothermal costs are already low," says Roger Taylor, a researcher for renewable interest organisation DESERTEC-Australia. "Together or alone, solar and geothermal are better, more proven long-term deals for Australian consumers than 'clean' coal or 'next-generation' nuclear."

Legend says curses come in threes. Let's pray that doesn't happen with the unholy trinity of the Corporate Climate Bill. It demands drilling for oil, digging for coal and big money for new nukes. How such a devil's brew could help save the Earth conjures a corporate cynicism beyond the scope of the human mind and soul. It all now bears a special curse. It was meant for Earth Day. Then it slipped to the April 26 Chernobyl anniversary. But co-sponsor Lindsay Graham (R-SC) pitched a fit over immigration and pulled his support. As did Earth herself. Just prior, more than two dozen hill country miners were killed in a veritable Three Mile Island of black carbon. This entirely avoidable accident was built on years of sloppy denial by King Coal and the tacit assent of pliant regulators. With mountains of offal being pitched into rivers and streams, and underground hell holes filled with gas and soot, coal has been slaughtering people and eco-systems here for more than a century. Now, as at TMI, the death has become visible. Meanwhile, the undersea gusher destroying the Gulf of Mexico may soon pour up the east coast. Like Chernobyl, it defies comprehension. "

The Grand Strand, South Carolina's tourist economic engine, won't have enough electricity by 2012 to keep its beachfront towers aglow unless a new $1.2 billion coal-burning power station is built near Florence. That was the warning Santee Cooper, the state-owned electricity company, gave to state and federal regulators. It was the argument the power company presented at public hearings. And it was that caution that Lonnie Carter, Santee Cooper's president and chief executive, offered during interviews with journalists. The argument that the coal-fired power plant was the only solution formed the key justification for Santee Cooper to spend $242 million over the past three years, most of that stockpiling material to build, even though it lacked government approval to operate the facility.

The Grand Strand, South Carolina's tourist economic engine, won't have enough electricity by 2012 to keep its beachfront towers aglow unless a new $1.2 billion coal-burning power station is built near Florence. That was the warning Santee Cooper, the state-owned electricity company, gave to state and federal regulators. It was the argument the power company presented at public hearings. And it was that caution that Lonnie Carter, Santee Cooper's president and chief executive, offered during interviews with journalists. The argument that the coal-fired power plant was the only solution formed the key justification for Santee Cooper to spend $242 million over the past three years, most of that stockpiling material to build, even though it lacked government approval to operate the facility.

A week after a dam collapsed at the Kingston power plant in eastern Tennessee and dumped more than a billion gallons of toxic coal ash waste into the nearby community of Harriman and the Emory River, the Tennessee Valley Authority collected samples of the ash and tested them for radioactivity. The summary of results [pdf] released by the company suggested the risk was minimal, stating that the total radioactivity in the ash was "less than that found in low sodium salt available to consumers on the shelves of grocery stores."

TVA is scaling back plans for new reactors at its Bellefonte Nuclear Plant in northeast Alabama as it moves forward with building a natural-gas-powered generator adjacent to a coal-fired steam plant near Rogersville, Tenn. Advertisement The Bellefonte plant, picked three years ago as a possible site for America's next reactor and once eyed for up to four reactors, is now being studied for a single reactor to be built within the next decade. TVA announced Friday that falling power sales and rising cleanup costs at the Kingston ash spill have changed plans for the nuclear plant in Hollywood, Ala. "As the valley grows, TVA intends to meet the demand for power with a combination of conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy sources and additional base load generation," TVA Senior Vice President Ashok Bhatnagar said.

TVA is scaling back plans for new reactors at its Bellefonte Nuclear Plant in northeast Alabama as it moves forward with building a natural-gas-powered generator adjacent to a coal-fired steam plant near Rogersville, Tenn. Advertisement The Bellefonte plant, picked three years ago as a possible site for America's next reactor and once eyed for up to four reactors, is now being studied for a single reactor to be built within the next decade. TVA announced Friday that falling power sales and rising cleanup costs at the Kingston ash spill have changed plans for the nuclear plant in Hollywood, Ala. "As the valley grows, TVA intends to meet the demand for power with a combination of conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy sources and additional base load generation," TVA Senior Vice President Ashok Bhatnagar said.

TVA is scaling back plans for new reactors at its Bellefonte Nuclear Plant in northeast Alabama as it moves forward with building a natural-gas-powered generator adjacent to a coal-fired steam plant near Rogersville, Tenn. Advertisement The Bellefonte plant, picked three years ago as a possible site for America's next reactor and once eyed for up to four reactors, is now being studied for a single reactor to be built within the next decade. TVA announced Friday that falling power sales and rising cleanup costs at the Kingston ash spill have changed plans for the nuclear plant in Hollywood, Ala. "As the valley grows, TVA intends to meet the demand for power with a combination of conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy sources and additional base load generation," TVA Senior Vice President Ashok Bhatnagar said.

The Indiana lawmakers are considering legislation that would define "clean coal" and nuclear-generated electricity as renewable energy. They're also mulling bills that would define John "Cougar" Mellencamp as a jazz musician and categorize the pork tenderloin sandwich as a vegetable. Seriously, the energy change, being debated as part of a set of changes to the state's electricity laws, would allow nuclear and clean coal electricity to qualify for state renewable energy funding incentives. And it would let them count toward a renewable electricity standard -also under consideration in the statehouse-that would require Indiana utilities to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025.

The future of electricity production is being questioned as advances in nuclear power technology are being more widely researched. While the ability to produce electricity cleanly and inexpensively is becoming difficult, alternatives to traditional electricity production are being examined. Currently coal is Utah's most used resource for electricity generation. As of 2005, the U.S. Department of Energy stated that 93 percent of Utah's electricity comes from coal. At a recent conference local scientists constructed a strong case for using nuclear power to meet Utah and the country's future electricity needs. The following advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power were discussed: