Group items tagged

While the national media currently focus on the economic stimulus program of President Barack Obama, a major internal battle is shaping up between his environmental team, led by Carol Browner, who will seek a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program and a carbon tax, and his economic team, led by Larry Summers, who will almost certainly oppose such measures as having a significant deleterious effect on economic recovery. There is no doubt that the economic team will prevail. President Obama, however, does not need either a cap-and-trade program or a carbon tax to attain his laudable air quality and greenhouse gas reduction goals. Over 40 per cent of all greenhouse gases generated in the United States emanate from coal fired power plants. A national program to begin the process of replacing coal plants with nuclear power plants would eliminate this greenhouse gas generation and likewise overwhelmingly reduce America's smog (ozone) and soot (particulate matter) pollution.

Beyond ecological imperialism Climate change isn't just a battle between rich and poor - it shows how an obsession with economic growth is a dead end o guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 December 2009 12.30 GMT So the Copenhagen summit did not deliver any hope of substantive change, or even any indication that the world's leaders are sufficiently aware of the vastness and urgency of the problem. But is that such a surprise? Nothing in the much-hyped runup to the summit suggested that the organisers and participants had genuine ambitions to change course and stop or reverse a process of clearly unsustainable growth. Part of the problem is that the issue of climate change is increasingly portrayed as that of competing interests between countries. Thus, the summit has been interpreted variously as a fight between the "two largest culprits" - the US and China - or between a small group of developed countries and a small group of newly emerging countries (the group of four - China, India, Brazil and South Africa), or at best between rich and poor countries. The historical legacy of past growth in the rich countries that has a current adverse impact is certainly keenly felt in the developing world. It is not just the past: current per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world are still many multiples of that in any developing country, including China. So the attempts by northern commentators to lay blame on some countries for derailing the result by pointing to this discrepancy are seen in most developing countries as further evidence of an essentially colonial outlook. But describing this as a fight between countries misses the essential point: that the issue is really linked to an economic system - capitalism - that is crucially dependent upon rapid growth as its driving force, even if this "growth" does not deliver better lives for the people. So there is no questioning of the supposition that rich countries with declining populations mu

Beyond ecological imperialism Climate change isn't just a battle between rich and poor - it shows how an obsession with economic growth is a dead end o guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 December 2009 12.30 GMT So the Copenhagen summit did not deliver any hope of substantive change, or even any indication that the world's leaders are sufficiently aware of the vastness and urgency of the problem. But is that such a surprise? Nothing in the much-hyped runup to the summit suggested that the organisers and participants had genuine ambitions to change course and stop or reverse a process of clearly unsustainable growth. Part of the problem is that the issue of climate change is increasingly portrayed as that of competing interests between countries. Thus, the summit has been interpreted variously as a fight between the "two largest culprits" - the US and China - or between a small group of developed countries and a small group of newly emerging countries (the group of four - China, India, Brazil and South Africa), or at best between rich and poor countries. The historical legacy of past growth in the rich countries that has a current adverse impact is certainly keenly felt in the developing world. It is not just the past: current per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world are still many multiples of that in any developing country, including China. So the attempts by northern commentators to lay blame on some countries for derailing the result by pointing to this discrepancy are seen in most developing countries as further evidence of an essentially colonial outlook. But describing this as a fight between countries misses the essential point: that the issue is really linked to an economic system - capitalism - that is crucially dependent upon rapid growth as its driving force, even if this "growth" does not deliver better lives for the people. So there is no questioning of the supposition that rich countries with declining populations mu

In a response to the industry's exaggerated claims that renewed uranium mining would be a multi-billion dollar economic bonanza for New Mexico and the Grants area, the Law Center commissioned Dr. Thomas M. Power to evaluate the true economic impacts of uranium mining in New Mexico. The result is the only independently reviewed analysis of the subject in New Mexico entitled An Economic Evaluation of a Renewed Uranium Mining Boom in New Mexico.

John McCain is wrong. As I argued on Tuesday, John, if an investment has economic merit, government does not need to subsidize it or order the market to consume the fruit of that investment. But if an investment lacks economic merit, no amount of government favoritism will turn that ugly economic duckling into a beautiful, wealth-creating swan. Without subsidies, nuclear power plants would never have been built in the first place, and certainly wouldn't be built today. Let's briefly look at all of the handouts going to that industry:

John Shewairy of DOE's Oak Ridge office said nobody knows how much money might be coming to Oak Ridge to support an accelerated cleanup plan or how many jobs would be created if it's included in an economic stimulus package. On Friday, however, DOE's Oak Ridge manager Gerald Boyd reportedly told an ETEC (East Tennessee Economic Council) audience that the job figure could be as high as 1,000 this year if the best case funding scenario came to be.

Nuclear power plants have become less economically attractive for Qatar with the fall in international oil and gas prices, a Qatari official said Monday. "Nuclear would not compete with the current price of gas for us," Yousuf Janahi, manager of corporate planning and business development at Qatar's state-owned power company Kahramaa, told Reuters on the sidelines of a nuclear energy conference. "It is less economically viable now, and less attractive. The potential costs are changing with the turmoil in financial markets, the economic slowdown and development of alternative fuels."

One of America's top nuclear regulators when the Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor in Pennsylvania began melting in March, 1979, is to speak in Monroe this week about the economics of nuclear power. The speaker, Peter Bradford, was one of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's five board members at the time of the nation's worst nuclear accident. His talk, "Wise Energy Choices in Uncertain Economic Times," is scheduled for 7 p.m. Thursday at Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, 610 West Elm Ave., Monroe. It is free and open to the public.

French Prime Minister Francois Fillon on Thursday hit back at charges of economic nationalism sparked by the sale of a major division of nuclear giant Areva to two French firms. State-controlled Areva plans to sell its power transmission and distribution network to Alstom and Schneider Electric, having rejected bids from Japanese and US firms. "I read in the press that we were are being accused of economic patriotism," Fillon told workers at an Alstom plant in eastern France. "I would like to clarify a few points. The selection process was perfectly transparent and non-discriminatory," he added.

French Prime Minister Francois Fillon on Thursday hit back at charges of economic nationalism sparked by the sale of a major division of nuclear giant Areva to two French firms. State-controlled Areva plans to sell its power transmission and distribution network to Alstom and Schneider Electric, having rejected bids from Japanese and US firms. "I read in the press that we were are being accused of economic patriotism," Fillon told workers at an Alstom plant in eastern France. "I would like to clarify a few points. The selection process was perfectly transparent and non-discriminatory," he added.

"The head of Florida Power & Light Co. left the Public Service Commission hearing on the company's rate increase, complaining that 20,000 jobs in plant construction and growth will be lost because "politics trumped economics." The PSC hearing is still going on, but the regulatory panel has been whacking away at its already reduced staff recommendations all day. FP&L had sought a $1.3 billion rate hike but the staff recommended only $357 million -- and the commission lowered that. "Today, politics trumped economics because there is no economic case for the decisions that this commission made," said Armando Olivera, the company CEO."

Entergy Corp. reportedly won't pursue new nuclear builds in the U.S. Southeast because of lower demand seen after Hurricanes Katrina and Ike, the recession, and abundant but unused independent power generation in the region, the company's CEO J. Wayne Leonard told reporters at this week's Edison Electric Institute financial conference. "[Nuclear new builds are] not off the table, but the economics are really not supportive and not likely to be supportive in the near future," Reuters reported Leonard as saying on Tuesday. "There's no need to embark on the riskiest piece of the business." At the end of last year, Entergy Nuclear asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to suspend reviews for potential projects at its nuclear sites at Grand Gulf, near Port Gibson, Miss., and River Bend, near St. Francisville, La.-even though Louisiana and Mississippi have passed legislation offering cost-recovery incentives to build the new reactors. The company, the second-largest nuclear power generator in the U.S., had then said it had made the decision after "unsuccessful attempts to come to mutually acceptable business terms" with GE-Hitachi for its Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor.

Entergy Corp. reportedly won't pursue new nuclear builds in the U.S. Southeast because of lower demand seen after Hurricanes Katrina and Ike, the recession, and abundant but unused independent power generation in the region, the company's CEO J. Wayne Leonard told reporters at this week's Edison Electric Institute financial conference. "[Nuclear new builds are] not off the table, but the economics are really not supportive and not likely to be supportive in the near future," Reuters reported Leonard as saying on Tuesday. "There's no need to embark on the riskiest piece of the business." At the end of last year, Entergy Nuclear asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to suspend reviews for potential projects at its nuclear sites at Grand Gulf, near Port Gibson, Miss., and River Bend, near St. Francisville, La.-even though Louisiana and Mississippi have passed legislation offering cost-recovery incentives to build the new reactors. The company, the second-largest nuclear power generator in the U.S., had then said it had made the decision after "unsuccessful attempts to come to mutually acceptable business terms" with GE-Hitachi for its Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor.

oday I have had the opportunity to meet with Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Dr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia and other distinguished Indian leaders. We had productive discussions about the opportunities for partnerships between our two countries on clean energy technologies. Meeting the climate and clean energy challenge is a top priority for President Obama. In the past ten months, the United States has demonstrated its renewed commitment to these goals both by supporting domestic policies that advance clean energy, climate security, and economic recovery; and by vigorously vigorously re-engaging the international community through bi-lateral relationships, the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, the G20, and the UN negotiations. The U.S. will continue to work hard toward combating climate change and reaching a strong international agreement that puts the world on a pathway to a clean energy future. Working together, we can meet the clean energy and climate challenge in a way that will drive sustainable, low-carbon economic growth in the 21st century.

oday I have had the opportunity to meet with Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Dr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia and other distinguished Indian leaders. We had productive discussions about the opportunities for partnerships between our two countries on clean energy technologies. Meeting the climate and clean energy challenge is a top priority for President Obama. In the past ten months, the United States has demonstrated its renewed commitment to these goals both by supporting domestic policies that advance clean energy, climate security, and economic recovery; and by vigorously vigorously re-engaging the international community through bi-lateral relationships, the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, the G20, and the UN negotiations. The U.S. will continue to work hard toward combating climate change and reaching a strong international agreement that puts the world on a pathway to a clean energy future. Working together, we can meet the clean energy and climate challenge in a way that will drive sustainable, low-carbon economic growth in the 21st century.

With President-elect Barack Obama signaling that energy issues should be at the core of any economic stimulus package, the resurgent U.S. nuclear industry-like so many others-is pushing to make sure it's well represented. Industry representatives and lobbyists are asking lawmakers to use the economic stimulus package, estimated to be in the range of $700 billion to $800 billion, to help revive the country's long-dormant nuclear manufacturing sector, as well as to train workers for jobs within the industry, which is now precariously poised for an expansion. In recent years, more than two dozen applications for new reactors have been filed with federal regulators, after a 30-year drought in which no nuclear reactors were approved.

If Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant is closed down in 2012, the economic impact on Vermont will be immense, wrote a consultant hired to conduct one of many reviews for the state to inform the Public Service Board and the state Legislature in their decisions on whether the plant should continue operation to 2032. Jacob Thomas, a project manager for GDS Associates, Inc., analyzed government revenues and burdens, impacts through economic activity of the plant and potential ratepayer benefits through revenue-sharing and discounted price alternatives.

n a press conference call yesterday that's how Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute described nuclear power, "the economics are just not there". In the hour long briefing Brown went on to describe the myriad challenges facing expanding nuclear power and, the real, serious environmental issues aside, how it simply does not make financial sense compared to investing in renewable energy. Here's the rundown on Brown's argument:

Nuclear power is a risky source of energy that comes with many hidden costs, said an environmental analyst and long-time leader in the U.S. environmental movement Tuesday. Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, said the "flawed economics" of nuclear power are placing unforeseen burdens on taxpayers: the costs related to the construction of nuclear plants, the disposal of nuclear waste, the decommissioning of old plants, and security in case of an accident all contribute to the price the world pays for nuclear power. Wind energy is a more economically sound option, said Brown.

It turns out nuclear power's biggest worry isn't Yucca Mountain, Three Mile Island ghosts, or environmental protesters. It's economics. Rebecca Smith reports today in the WSJ (sub reqd.) on the biggest hurdle to the nascent nuclear-energy revival in the U.S.-skyrocketing construction costs. Though all power sectors are affected to different degrees by rising capital costs, nuclear power's vulnerability puts it in a class by itself. Notes the paper:

--Combination of Efficiency and Renewables Much More Economical Than New Nuclear Reactors With Skyrocketing Construction Costs; 'Low Balling' of Cost Estimates Imperils 'Nuclear Renaissance,' Just as Runaway Costs Sank the 'Great Bandwagon Market' of 1970s WASHINGTON, June 18, 2009 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The likely cost of electricity for a new generation of nuclear reactors would be 12-20 cents per kilowatt hour (KWh), considerably more expensive than the average cost of increased use of energy efficiency and renewable energies at 6 cents per kilowatt hour, according to a major new study by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables.

The likely cost of electricity for a new generation of nuclear reactors would be 12-20 cents per kilowatt hour (KWh), considerably more expensive than the average cost of increased use of energy efficiency and renewable energies at 6 cents per kilowatt hour, according to a major new study by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables. Titled "The Economics of Nuclear Reactors," Cooper's analysis of over three dozen cost estimates for proposed new nuclear reactors shows that the projected price tags for the plants have quadrupled since the start of the industry's so-called "nuclear renaissance" at the beginning of this decade -- a striking parallel to the eventually seven-fold increase in reactor costs estimates that doomed the "Great Bandwagon Market" of the 1960s and 1970s, when half of planned reactors had to be abandoned or cancelled due to massive cost overruns.

Ratings Warning From Moody's Followed by Mothballing of New Reactor Plans in Texas and Ontario; Developments in Line with Cooper Report from June Projecting Trillions in Excess Costs for Nuclear, Compared to Combination of Renewables and More Efficiency. WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Three major developments in the nuclear power industry in late June underscore the key findings of the "The Economics of Nuclear Reactors," a report released on June 18, 2009 by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The Cooper report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables. Available online at http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Academics/Environmental_Law_Center/Institutes_and_Initiatives/Institute_for_Energy_and_the_Environment/New_and_Noteworthy.htm, the Cooper analysis of over three dozen cost estimates for proposed new nuclear reactors shows that the projected price tags for the plants have quadrupled since the start of the industry's so-called "nuclear renaissance" at the beginning of this decade - a striking parallel to the eventually seven-fold increase in reactor costs estimates that doomed the "Great Bandwagon Market" of the 1960s and 1970s, when half of planned nuclear reactors had to be abandoned or cancelled due to massive cost overruns. Cooper said that three late June developments provide new evidence of the validity of the cost-related concerns documented in his report:

Three major developments in the nuclear power industry in late June underscore the key findings of the "The Economics of Nuclear Reactors," a report released on June 18, 2009 by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The Cooper report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables.