Group items tagged

"The Energy Debates" is a LiveScience series about the pros, cons, policy debates, myths and facts related to various alternative energy ideas. We invite you to join the debate by commenting directly on each article.

"The debate over nuclear power in recent months has revolved around taxpayer backed loan guarantees for new nuclear projects. Not only has the President announced $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees for a two-reactor project in Burke County, Georgia, his budget proposal includes tripling the nuclear loan guarantee program from $18.5 billion to over $54 billion. Unfortunately, some groups have used this debate to disguise their anti-nuclear agenda in anti-loan guarantee rhetoric. The basic construct of their argument is that nuclear energy is so risky and so expensive that using government backed financing subjects the taxpayer to unreasonable risk. The problem is that they often not only misrepresent facts about loan guarantees and what risks they pose, but also about nuclear energy broadly to make their case. Misrepresenting the facts not only undermines the legitimacy of their argument but takes away from a very important debate over whether or not loan guarantees are an appropriate tool for financing new nuclear (or any other energy source) projects."

The Liberals have reignited the nuclear debate, with a frontbencher saying Australia must have nuclear power if it is to slash greenhouse gas emissions. But the government has vehemently rejected the push and says people do not want nuclear power plants in their suburbs. Liberal frontbencher Ian Macfarlane opened the latest round of the radioactive debate when he talked up "yellowcake" in a speech.

A 20-year-old telegram has heated up Germany's debate over nuclear power in the run-up to parliamentary elections later this month. The telegram seems to substantiate charges that politicians in the government of former Chancellor Helmut Kohl pressured scientists to recommend an old salt mine as a potential site for long-term nuclear waste storage. The debate is part of a larger controversy over whether or not the country should phase out its nuclear power by 2022, as current law stipulates. The country's two center-right parties, which have a slight lead in the latest polls, have said they want to let the country's nuclear power plants run up to a decade longer. The country's three, main, left-leaning parties support the phaseout. As many as 50,000 people attended a march against nuclear power in Berlin last weekend. The long-running controversy over the site will seem familiar to observers of the debate over the proposed nuclear waste repository in Yucca Mountain, which has been defunded by the Obama Administration. Germany, like the United States, has no long-term disposal site for high-level radioactive waste.

"Sweden is to build new nuclear power stations in defiance of a 1980 referendum when Swedes voted to phase out atomic power. After a debate in which Sweden's need for climate friendly, low carbon energy clashed with environmental concerns over atomic energy, Swedish MPs narrowly voted to build new nuclear reactor on Thursday night. "A few months ago, the climate threat dominated the environmental debate. Now it is the oil disaster in the Mexican Gulf that is sparking the world's interest and horror," said Andreas Carlgren, the Swedish environment minister during a heated debate. Related Articles * Eight new nuclear power stations planned for England * Warning signs on nuclear power * Honduras lifts overnight curfew * Iran election: 'unprecedented' turnout boosts challenge to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad * Britain's atomic test veterans remember nuclear tests of 1950s * Iran's president opens door to talks with US on nuclear programme "Both are really two sides of the same coin, namely, we must leave the dependency on oil and fossil energy behind." Construction will begin next year to replace the 10 ageing reactors that still produce 40 per cent of Sweden's electricity. But Sweden's centre-Left opposition, currently running neck and neck with the government in opinion polls ahead of elections is September, have vowed to reinstate the ban. "

Recently, I attended a debate organized by the Saskatchewan Council for International Co-operation regarding pro- and anti- positions on developing nuclear energy in Saskatchewan. More than 1,000 people showed up between events in Saskatoon and Regina. While each debater was a long-term, respected advocate of their position and well-informed on issues and potential positive and negative impacts of the uranium cycle, unfortunately these were many of the same arguments for and against nuclear energy that I heard 20 years ago. Some things have changed since then, however, and were largely missing from the debate.

ONE of the most important factors in the future fate of Sellafield is to be the subject of a top-level debate next week. The debate as to whether the UK's stockpile of plutonium - most of which is held at Sellafield - should be considered an asset or a liability could have a major impact on the economic future of region. The government, through the NDA, have yet to decide on what should be done with the stockpile, which is currently considered an asset of no value on their balance sheets.

The annual meeting of the South Australian Liberal Party has supported a motion to debate the use of nuclear power technology to reduce carbon emissions. The motion was carried by a narrow majority despite strong opposition from senior state and federal Liberal MPs. Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond says though she is not worried about having the debate, she does not support the motion.

With its recent recommendation to move forward with construction of two new nuclear power units in South Texas, the staff of CPS Energy has placed San Antonio at the forefront of a national debate that has been raging for more than two dozen years. There hasn't been a new nuclear power reactor constructed in the U.S. since the 1970s, but now there are five potential units on the horizon, including two that would be located in South Texas supplying power for CPS Energy - which serves San Antonio and Bexar County. Former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman came to San Antonio recently as co-chair of a group advocating for the expansion of nuclear energy nationwide and acknowledged the Alamo City's central role in the debate.

PRIVATELY, the Federal Government is not happy that uranium miner Rio Tinto has launched an attack on its recently stated opposition to nuclear power. But publicly, Government ministers were polite yesterday in responding to a pro-nuclear submission made by Rio Tinto over a white paper on government energy policy. Treasurer Wayne Swan moved quickly to ground debate, declaring yesterday: "We don't agree with Rio Tinto on that point." Climate Change Minister Penny Wong was equally dismissive, but civil: "Rio Tinto is entitled to their view." After lobbing the hand grenade which has reignited the nuclear debate, the uranium mining giant ran for cover yesterday.

The nuclear debate once again risks becoming simply caught up in the pros and cons of nuclear technology itself, missing the vital point that, in Australia, we have a host of safe, environmentally sustainable, economically viable alternatives to reduce our carbon emissions. Given that renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions can be deployed now, at a scale and volume large enough to make a sizable dent in greenhouse gas emissions, reopening the conversation around nuclear is surely a debate and a distraction we don't need.

The nuclear debate once again risks becoming simply caught up in the pros and cons of nuclear technology itself, missing the vital point that, in Australia, we have a host of safe, environmentally sustainable, economically viable alternatives to reduce our carbon emissions. Given that renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions can be deployed now, at a scale and volume large enough to make a sizable dent in greenhouse gas emissions, reopening the conversation around nuclear is surely a debate and a distraction we don't need.

The purpose of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is to encourage the growth of nuclear power worldwide. "It was a Bush initiative that Canada joined in December 2007 without any debate in parliament," explains Schacherl. An article printed in The Toronto Star on November 29, 2007 called on Canada to join a controversial nuclear partnership. The plan proposes re-using nuclear waste, a practice effectively banned in Canada and the U.S. since the 1970s for security reasons. It was announced in this article that Canada would be a part of the GNEP. Dave Martin of Greenpeace Canada insisted that "no matter which side of the nuclear debate you fall on - pro or anti - everyone should be able to agree this is something which deserves public scrutiny." Schacherl adds, "One of the principles of the GNEP partnership is that those countries who sell uranium will agree to take back the spent fuel. The United States, who initiated the partnership, benefits the most as it has a huge nuclear waste problem. Yucca Mountain, where long-term storage was once planned, has now been shelved for a number of reasons including community opposition. Countries such as Canada clearly don't benefit as they will take

The purpose of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is to encourage the growth of nuclear power worldwide. "It was a Bush initiative that Canada joined in December 2007 without any debate in parliament," explains Schacherl. An article printed in The Toronto Star on November 29, 2007 called on Canada to join a controversial nuclear partnership. The plan proposes re-using nuclear waste, a practice effectively banned in Canada and the U.S. since the 1970s for security reasons. It was announced in this article that Canada would be a part of the GNEP. Dave Martin of Greenpeace Canada insisted that "no matter which side of the nuclear debate you fall on - pro or anti - everyone should be able to agree this is something which deserves public scrutiny." Schacherl adds, "One of the principles of the GNEP partnership is that those countries who sell uranium will agree to take back the spent fuel. The United States, who initiated the partnership, benefits the most as it has a huge nuclear waste problem. Yucca Mountain, where long-term storage was once planned, has now been shelved for a number of reasons including community opposition. Countries such as Canada clearly don't benefit as they will take

SCE&G's plan to build two reactors goes before state regulators Wednesday SCE&G and Santee Cooper estimate it will cost about $10 billion to build two nuclear reactors in Fairfield County. What nuclear energy can you do with $10 billion? A few ideas: Thirty years after the commercial nuclear power industry appeared dead, South Carolina is on the leading edge of its rebound. Nationwide, applications to build a dozen nuclear power reactors - four in South Carolina - have been filed with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. While there is growing public support for nuclear power, its resurgence also has touched off a firestorm of debate.

In Switzerland, five nuclear plants produce about 40 per cent of the country's electricity. Hydropower accounts for most of the rest. Over the next ten years, the nuclear plants will start to reach the end of their operational life. That's led to heated debate over the country's future energy supply. Some say we should replace the existing power plants or build new ones. Others say the future lies in renewables or an increase in energy efficiency. And the government believes the medium to long term future lies somewhere in between. Vincent Landon reports.

As part of the Reuters Summit on global climate and alternative energy, Reuters.com asked Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club and Ian Hore-Lacy, director of public communication for the World Nuclear Association to discuss the role of nuclear energy. Here are their responses.

A hair salon is an unlikely place to stage a war. It's the morning after the grassroots group opposed to building a nuclear reactor in the province, Renewable Power - the Intelligent Choice (RPIC), waged its latest campaign, an April 27 rally outside Prince Albert City Hall, and already members are planning their next move. Janis McKnight and Richard Swanby, owners of the Blunt hair salon, haven't seen their first client for the day, except for local environmentalist and professional photographer, Thomas Porter. But he's not here for a trim. This is strategy. This is a war for public opinion.

The government is expected to release a report on nuclear power Thursday, officially launching a provincial debate on whether Alberta will invite Bruce Power to build a reactor near Peace River. "There's nothing in it that's prescriptive, there's nothing in it that indicates what the province should do, one way or another," Energy Minister Mel Knight said Wednesday. The report sets out answers to how nuclear reactors work and how such a project might affect the air, water and ground. It also shows how nuclear energy would tie into Alberta's system, Knight said.

In 2009, the local political sleeper was - drumroll, please - District 8 Councilman Reed Williams. Williams was anything but a brand name when he was elected. He'd worked 35 years in the oil industry but wasn't part of the small clique of local business leaders who regularly influence City Hall. At 62, Williams has an unassuming demeanor and zero political ambitions. Yet when it came to the debate over expansion of the South Texas Project, he played a critical behind-the-scenes role. He offered expertise and common sense that has made him a key voice in charting the city's energy future. He started out inclined to support the nuclear expansion. When he had an interview with the Sierra Club during the campaign, one of the leaders asked where he and the organization would differ.

In 2009, the local political sleeper was - drumroll, please - District 8 Councilman Reed Williams. Williams was anything but a brand name when he was elected. He'd worked 35 years in the oil industry but wasn't part of the small clique of local business leaders who regularly influence City Hall. At 62, Williams has an unassuming demeanor and zero political ambitions. Yet when it came to the debate over expansion of the South Texas Project, he played a critical behind-the-scenes role. He offered expertise and common sense that has made him a key voice in charting the city's energy future. He started out inclined to support the nuclear expansion. When he had an interview with the Sierra Club during the campaign, one of the leaders asked where he and the organization would differ.

The Finnish debate about the number of nuclear power stations to be built over the next couple of decades flared up on Wednesday with Mauri Pekkarinen (centre), the economic affairs minister, calling for caution in granting building permission for more than one unit. He said at an energy seminar in Helsinki that while the replacement of coal-fired power station meant one extra nuclear unit was needed there were no grounds to approve the construction of several. Mr Pekkarinen added that existing capacity and power stations under construction at the moment could sate projected demand until the 2020s. Jyrki Katainen (cons), the finance minister, had repeated that the government should propose the approval of all three nuclear power station applications. The Green League, part of the centre-right-led coalition, said even a single new nuclear power station was unnecessary.

The Finnish debate about the number of nuclear power stations to be built over the next couple of decades flared up on Wednesday with Mauri Pekkarinen (centre), the economic affairs minister, calling for caution in granting building permission for more than one unit. He said at an energy seminar in Helsinki that while the replacement of coal-fired power station meant one extra nuclear unit was needed there were no grounds to approve the construction of several. Mr Pekkarinen added that existing capacity and power stations under construction at the moment could sate projected demand until the 2020s. Jyrki Katainen (cons), the finance minister, had repeated that the government should propose the approval of all three nuclear power station applications. The Green League, part of the centre-right-led coalition, said even a single new nuclear power station was unnecessary.

Which energy technologies get the heftiest subsidies? We've been debating that here in the Lab as nuclear-power advocates and renewable-energy advocates accuse each other of being on the dole. Here's a set of numbers to consider, courtesy of a vigorous debate on nuclear power at the Reason Foundation between William Tucker, the author of "Terrestrial Energy" (discussed in my Findings column) and Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute (quoted in a recent Lab post).