Group items tagged

n seeking to reduce Russia's greenhouse gas emissions, energy saving programs are more important than increased reliance on nuclear power, a World Wildlife Fund Russia official said on Tuesday. Commenting on widespread calls to boost the role of nuclear power, Alexei Kokorin, who heads WWF Russia's Climate and Energy program, said: "This point of view is certainly on the rise." He said that for many countries, including France, Armenia, Finland and Bulgaria, nuclear power may prove the best option for cutting emissions, but that in Russia's case "cheaper options need to be used." "I know that in Russia, the main way to cut emissions is energy saving and energy efficiency", he said, and highlighted the findings of an International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook report published earlier this month.

n seeking to reduce Russia's greenhouse gas emissions, energy saving programs are more important than increased reliance on nuclear power, a World Wildlife Fund Russia official said on Tuesday. Commenting on widespread calls to boost the role of nuclear power, Alexei Kokorin, who heads WWF Russia's Climate and Energy program, said: "This point of view is certainly on the rise." He said that for many countries, including France, Armenia, Finland and Bulgaria, nuclear power may prove the best option for cutting emissions, but that in Russia's case "cheaper options need to be used." "I know that in Russia, the main way to cut emissions is energy saving and energy efficiency", he said, and highlighted the findings of an International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook report published earlier this month.

Nuclear energy sounds like the answer to this country's energy problems, but it isn't. For decades, nuclear power has been peddled as being an efficient and inexpensive energy. In the '50s, nuclear advocates loudly promised the world that atomic power would provide electricity "too cheap to meter." That promise dissolved with the reality of reactor construction costs in the 1970s and 1980s. But the price to consumers isn't limited to just the cost of the power usage that is listed on your monthly electricity bill. It goes way beyond that. Nuclear power is not cheap. Since the very beginning the government has been heaping subsidies, which come from our tax dollars, into the building and running of nuclear plants. But these cash payments and tax breaks are not the most valuable subsidies that they receive. The most important subsidies that the investors and owners can receive come from shifting the risks onto the taxpayers or the surrounding area's population.

Nuclear energy sounds like the answer to this country's energy problems, but it isn't. For decades, nuclear power has been peddled as being an efficient and inexpensive energy. In the '50s, nuclear advocates loudly promised the world that atomic power would provide electricity "too cheap to meter." That promise dissolved with the reality of reactor construction costs in the 1970s and 1980s. But the price to consumers isn't limited to just the cost of the power usage that is listed on your monthly electricity bill. It goes way beyond that. Nuclear power is not cheap. Since the very beginning the government has been heaping subsidies, which come from our tax dollars, into the building and running of nuclear plants. But these cash payments and tax breaks are not the most valuable subsidies that they receive. The most important subsidies that the investors and owners can receive come from shifting the risks onto the taxpayers or the surrounding area's population.

Energy Northwest's proposal to research whether another nuclear reactor should be built in Washington state ignores better and less risky energy alternatives, writes guest columnist Sara Patton, executive director of the NW Energy Coalition. By Sara Patton NOTHING could do more to spotlight the need to draw tomorrow's power from energy efficiency and new renewable resources than the recent news that Energy Northwest wants to build more nuclear-power plants in Washington. Energy Northwest - a consortium of 25 publicly owned Washington electric utilities - is asking its members to pay for additional research for a proposed nuclear plant that it says could be under construction in 2014. The fledgling project ignores the severe financial and radioactive waste-disposal risks still posed by nuclear power. And it disregards extensive documentation of the region's substantial clean-energy potential.

Utilities that want to build new nuclear reactors should have to prove they are a better investment than energy efficiency, a new report says. The Arizona Public Interest Research Group Education Fund this week released its 40-page report, titled "The High Cost of Nuclear Power: Why America Should Choose a Clean Energy Future Over New Nuclear Power." According to the report, utilities can cut the amount of energy they need to supply customers by offering them incentives to install low-power appliances or insulate their homes better.

With nuclear energy, uranium atoms split inside a reactor, and radiation heats water to its boiling point creating steam to spin a giant turbine. It all seems like ingenious, efficient, and clean energy production. So where's the mess? Now consider plutonium, a horribly carcinogenic and highly fissionable substance, radioactive for more than half a million years. If exposed to air, it will ignite. Like little pieces of confetti, very fine plutonium particles will disperse after ignition. A single particle -- like talc, to give you some perspective -- can give you lung cancer. In the words of Helen Caldicott, M.D.: "Hypothetically, if you could take one pound of plutonium and could put a speck of it in the lungs of every human being, you would kill every man, woman, and child on earth" -- not immediately, but over time "from lung cancer," Caldicott explains.

With nuclear energy, uranium atoms split inside a reactor, and radiation heats water to its boiling point creating steam to spin a giant turbine. It all seems like ingenious, efficient, and clean energy production. So where's the mess? Now consider plutonium, a horribly carcinogenic and highly fissionable substance, radioactive for more than half a million years. If exposed to air, it will ignite. Like little pieces of confetti, very fine plutonium particles will disperse after ignition. A single particle -- like talc, to give you some perspective -- can give you lung cancer. In the words of Helen Caldicott, M.D.: "Hypothetically, if you could take one pound of plutonium and could put a speck of it in the lungs of every human being, you would kill every man, woman, and child on earth" -- not immediately, but over time "from lung cancer," Caldicott explains.

Nuclear Power Industry is Perfect Illustration of Why Taxpayers Are Saying "No More Bailouts!" - Billions for Plant Vogtle Reactors Impossible to Justify in Terms of Rising Financial Risks, Reduced Demand for Power, Cheaper Renewables and Huge Potential of Energy Efficiency ATLANTA, Dec. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- First it was insurance companies, then it was banks and that was followed by auto companies. Now, the federal government is putting U.S. taxpayers and utility customers at new risk under a controversial U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee program that is slated to award $18.5 billion, with Atlanta-based Southern Company predicted to be first on the list for program funds to build two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Georgia. Ironically, the DOE's "top choice" for the nuclear reactor loan guarantees, which are backed by U.S. taxpayers in the event of defaults, is the very same Plant Vogtle that helped to kill the previous nuclear power boom in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. Huge cost overruns at the original Plant Vogtle - which escalated from $660 million for four reactors to a whopping $8.87 billion for two - likely played a role in putting the brakes on nuclear expansion plans pursued decades ago in the United States.

Nuclear Power Industry is Perfect Illustration of Why Taxpayers Are Saying "No More Bailouts!" - Billions for Plant Vogtle Reactors Impossible to Justify in Terms of Rising Financial Risks, Reduced Demand for Power, Cheaper Renewables and Huge Potential of Energy Efficiency ATLANTA, Dec. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- First it was insurance companies, then it was banks and that was followed by auto companies. Now, the federal government is putting U.S. taxpayers and utility customers at new risk under a controversial U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee program that is slated to award $18.5 billion, with Atlanta-based Southern Company predicted to be first on the list for program funds to build two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Georgia. Ironically, the DOE's "top choice" for the nuclear reactor loan guarantees, which are backed by U.S. taxpayers in the event of defaults, is the very same Plant Vogtle that helped to kill the previous nuclear power boom in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. Huge cost overruns at the original Plant Vogtle - which escalated from $660 million for four reactors to a whopping $8.87 billion for two - likely played a role in putting the brakes on nuclear expansion plans pursued decades ago in the United States.

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 leader of the federal NDP weighed in on Saskatchewan's ongoing debate over nuclear energy during a visit to Saskatoon on Saturday. Jack Layton, in the city as part of a cross-country tour, argued taxpayers shouldn't be covering the bill for nuclear energy. "It shouldn't be given an unfair advantage by being heavily subsidized by the taxpayers," said Layton. Public money should instead go to renewables, he said. "If any energy source is to be assisted, it really ought to be a kind of energy source that's going to solve a number of our problems. So it should be primarily renewable energy, energy efficiency, such things as geothermal and solar," said Layton.

The leader of the federal NDP weighed in on Saskatchewan's ongoing debate over nuclear energy during a visit to Saskatoon on Saturday. Jack Layton, in the city as part of a cross-country tour, argued taxpayers shouldn't be covering the bill for nuclear energy. "It shouldn't be given an unfair advantage by being heavily subsidized by the taxpayers," said Layton. Public money should instead go to renewables, he said. "If any energy source is to be assisted, it really ought to be a kind of energy source that's going to solve a number of our problems. So it should be primarily renewable energy, energy efficiency, such things as geothermal and solar," said Layton.

Four lawmakers involved in energy and environmental issues on Thursday released details of the global warming legislation that is expected to be introduced soon in the state Legislature. The draft legislation would relax the state's ban on building nuclear power plants while requiring the state's utilities to increase the amount of renewable power they generate and increase their investment in energy efficiency. The draft "is intended to track the recommendations of the (global warming) task force," the four legislators said in a letter Thursday. The task force, appointed by Gov. Jim Doyle, included legislators, utilities, environmental groups and businesses.

Four lawmakers involved in energy and environmental issues on Thursday released details of the global warming legislation that is expected to be introduced soon in the state Legislature. The draft legislation would relax the state's ban on building nuclear power plants while requiring the state's utilities to increase the amount of renewable power they generate and increase their investment in energy efficiency. The draft "is intended to track the recommendations of the (global warming) task force," the four legislators said in a letter Thursday. The task force, appointed by Gov. Jim Doyle, included legislators, utilities, environmental groups and businesses.

The Limerick nuclear power plant in Montgomery County is about to undergo a major facelift. Improvements the company says are designed to increase the amount of electricity the plant puts out. The first phase of the upgrade or in industry terms "uprate" involves installing equipment to get better readings and allow the plant to operate closer to its legal capacity. Exelon officials say that could yield an improvement of up to two percent. Limerick communications manager Joe Szafran says the industry is focused on getting as much electricity as it can from the reactors that are out there and doing it more efficiently:

The Limerick nuclear power plant in Montgomery County is about to undergo a major facelift. Improvements the company says are designed to increase the amount of electricity the plant puts out. The first phase of the upgrade or in industry terms "uprate" involves installing equipment to get better readings and allow the plant to operate closer to its legal capacity. Exelon officials say that could yield an improvement of up to two percent. Limerick communications manager Joe Szafran says the industry is focused on getting as much electricity as it can from the reactors that are out there and doing it more efficiently:

Schacherl describes the nuclear agenda for Alberta. Bruce Power, a private nuclear operator from Ontario, is proposing to build four large first-of-a-kind nuclear reactors in the Peace River region that would produce 4,000 megawatts of nuclear power. As the Pembina Institute has shown in "Greening the Grid," (http://re.pembina.org/pub/1763) all of our electrical needs can be met in Alberta over the next 20 years through energy efficiency, cogeneration and renewable energy such as wind, power and geothermal. "From wind power alone, there is 11,500 megawatts in applications waiting to be considered. The excess energy that nuclear would produce would end up being exported likely to the United States," verifies Schacherl. One of the reasons why nuclear energy is being installed in Northern Alberta is for assisting oil sands operation for the purpose of extracting bitumen. However, Schacherl explains that in March 2007, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources concluded that "classic nuclear plants are too big for oil sands development and that smaller plants would have to be considered."

Schacherl describes the nuclear agenda for Alberta. Bruce Power, a private nuclear operator from Ontario, is proposing to build four large first-of-a-kind nuclear reactors in the Peace River region that would produce 4,000 megawatts of nuclear power. As the Pembina Institute has shown in "Greening the Grid," (http://re.pembina.org/pub/1763) all of our electrical needs can be met in Alberta over the next 20 years through energy efficiency, cogeneration and renewable energy such as wind, power and geothermal. "From wind power alone, there is 11,500 megawatts in applications waiting to be considered. The excess energy that nuclear would produce would end up being exported likely to the United States," verifies Schacherl. One of the reasons why nuclear energy is being installed in Northern Alberta is for assisting oil sands operation for the purpose of extracting bitumen. However, Schacherl explains that in March 2007, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources concluded that "classic nuclear plants are too big for oil sands development and that smaller plants would have to be considered."

Elena Schacherl initiated the grassroots organization Citizens Advocating the Use of Sustainable Energy (CAUSE) in January 2007. Many of the people who are members of CAUSE come from diverse backgrounds. The announcement of possible plans for extensive nuclear development in Alberta by a company at the time called Energy Alberta Corporation was the inspiration behind its formation. The Alberta Environmental Network circulated the notice of the first meeting according to Schacherl. "Our mandate is to oppose nuclear development in Alberta by educating the public about the safety, environmental, health and economic risks of nuclear power. We support energy efficiency and renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal as safer, less expensive and more environmentally friendly means of conserving and generating electricity," explains Schacherl.

Elena Schacherl initiated the grassroots organization Citizens Advocating the Use of Sustainable Energy (CAUSE) in January 2007. Many of the people who are members of CAUSE come from diverse backgrounds. The announcement of possible plans for extensive nuclear development in Alberta by a company at the time called Energy Alberta Corporation was the inspiration behind its formation. The Alberta Environmental Network circulated the notice of the first meeting according to Schacherl. "Our mandate is to oppose nuclear development in Alberta by educating the public about the safety, environmental, health and economic risks of nuclear power. We support energy efficiency and renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal as safer, less expensive and more environmentally friendly means of conserving and generating electricity," explains Schacherl.

Weakening Wisconsin laws regulating new nuclear reactors should not be part of a climate change bill. The Clean Energy Jobs Act, unveiled in the state Legislature recently, is a significant step toward addressing global warming while strengthening our state economy. Although much of the bill is a positive step to addressing global warming, it weakens Wisconsin's current law on building new nuclear reactors. Wisconsin's current law is common sense and protects citizens and the environment from radioactive nuclear waste, which poses considerable risks for tens thousands of years and contains plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons if separated. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power.

Weakening Wisconsin laws regulating new nuclear reactors should not be part of a climate change bill. The Clean Energy Jobs Act, unveiled in the state Legislature recently, is a significant step toward addressing global warming while strengthening our state economy. Although much of the bill is a positive step to addressing global warming, it weakens Wisconsin's current law on building new nuclear reactors. Wisconsin's current law is common sense and protects citizens and the environment from radioactive nuclear waste, which poses considerable risks for tens thousands of years and contains plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons if separated. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power.

It's the first step toward widespread Korean export of today's most promising clean energy source. Korea now has some of the world's most efficient, cutting-edge plant designs. It might seem strange for a bunch of nuclear power plants in the United Arab Emirates that aren't even built yet to be all over the evening news in Korea, but that's exactly what happened last month.

It's the first step toward widespread Korean export of today's most promising clean energy source. Korea now has some of the world's most efficient, cutting-edge plant designs. It might seem strange for a bunch of nuclear power plants in the United Arab Emirates that aren't even built yet to be all over the evening news in Korea, but that's exactly what happened last month.

"Energy thinker Amory Lovins will speak at Salisbury's Catawba College on Feb. 23. Lovins is co-founder of Rocky Mountain Institute, a "think-and-do tank" that applies market-based solutions to efficient use of resources. Time magazine last year named him one of the world's 100 most influential people. He talked with energy and environment writer Bruce Henderson; comments are edited for clarity and brevity."

"There is growing anger at proposals to build a new nuclear power station on the site of the second-oldest wind farm in Britain. Wind farm climate change global warming The site is just 100 metres away from the Lake District border Situated just 100 metres from the Lake District border, the small community-owned Haverigg wind farm in Kirksanton is one of the most efficient in the country. The land has made the Government shortlist of 10 sites judged potentially suitable for new nuclear build. Wind farm co-owner, Colin Palmer, told Sky News the turbines would have to be demolished if the plans go ahead because of underground cables."

The United States and Italy on Tuesday signed a nuclear cooperation deal that would enlist U.S. companies to help build a string of nuclear power stations across Italy, ending a 22-year ban by the Italian government. "Italy is restarting its nuclear energy again," U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu told reporters. "It has aggressive goals, very admirable goals, in decreasing its carbon emissions through nuclear, through renewable energy, through improvements and efficiency." Chu said companies like General Electric (GE.N) and Toshiba Corp (6502.T) unit Westinghouse will be able to bid on projects in Italy, which hopes to issue in mid-February criteria that would determine the location of the facilities.

The United States and Italy on Tuesday signed a nuclear cooperation deal that would enlist U.S. companies to help build a string of nuclear power stations across Italy, ending a 22-year ban by the Italian government. "Italy is restarting its nuclear energy again," U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu told reporters. "It has aggressive goals, very admirable goals, in decreasing its carbon emissions through nuclear, through renewable energy, through improvements and efficiency." Chu said companies like General Electric (GE.N) and Toshiba Corp (6502.T) unit Westinghouse will be able to bid on projects in Italy, which hopes to issue in mid-February criteria that would determine the location of the facilities.

Regarding Carolyn D. Heising's Oct. 13 guest opinion: The more urgent question should have been: What is the future for nuclear power? I would agree with Heising on just two points: The United States needs an aggressive program of energy efficiency, and the stakes are too high for vital (energy) decisions to be made on the basis of hope and faith. Not one of her 10 paragraphs even hints at the horrendous problems and worries of nuclear-power generation. Nuclear power has to be perfect, lest a Chernobyl-type accident once again spiels radioactive waste capable of destroying surrounding countryside for generations to come.

Regarding Carolyn D. Heising's Oct. 13 guest opinion: The more urgent question should have been: What is the future for nuclear power? I would agree with Heising on just two points: The United States needs an aggressive program of energy efficiency, and the stakes are too high for vital (energy) decisions to be made on the basis of hope and faith. Not one of her 10 paragraphs even hints at the horrendous problems and worries of nuclear-power generation. Nuclear power has to be perfect, lest a Chernobyl-type accident once again spiels radioactive waste capable of destroying surrounding countryside for generations to come.

Regarding the guest editorial "Time to reconsider nuclear power" published Monday, there are numerous aspects to nuclear power that the author fails to mention. Most importantly, when the Pioneer of Bemidji states that nuclear power is a clean energy source, that "today's technological advances can produce safe, efficient power plants," they are seriously mistaken. While coal burning is mentioned as a possibility for a continued and extensive source of energy, the level of carbon produced makes it seem like not a viable option. However, it is discovered that nuclear energy is not a very green choice, either.

Regarding the guest editorial "Time to reconsider nuclear power" published Monday, there are numerous aspects to nuclear power that the author fails to mention. Most importantly, when the Pioneer of Bemidji states that nuclear power is a clean energy source, that "today's technological advances can produce safe, efficient power plants," they are seriously mistaken. While coal burning is mentioned as a possibility for a continued and extensive source of energy, the level of carbon produced makes it seem like not a viable option. However, it is discovered that nuclear energy is not a very green choice, either.

The Government is considering fresh tax breaks for Britain's nuclear power industry that could smooth the way for the construction of a new generation of UK reactors, The Times has learnt. Whitehall insiders have told The Times that officials at the Department for Energy and Climate Change have been studying the possibility of an exemption for nuclear electricity from the climate change levy, a tax on industrial energy consumption that was created to boost energy efficiency. The levy, which was introduced in 2001, raises an estimated £1 billion a year for the Treasury. Suppliers pay the levy on electricity provided to businesses to Customs & Excise and then pass on the costs to customers.

The Government is considering fresh tax breaks for Britain's nuclear power industry that could smooth the way for the construction of a new generation of UK reactors, The Times has learnt. Whitehall insiders have told The Times that officials at the Department for Energy and Climate Change have been studying the possibility of an exemption for nuclear electricity from the climate change levy, a tax on industrial energy consumption that was created to boost energy efficiency. The levy, which was introduced in 2001, raises an estimated £1 billion a year for the Treasury. Suppliers pay the levy on electricity provided to businesses to Customs & Excise and then pass on the costs to customers.