Group items tagged

"Uranium emissions that possibly exceeded the action level at Cameco's Port Hope Conversion Facility has the federal nuclear regulator asking for more emissions information from the company. According to a Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) media release, the CNSC feels further improvements to Cameco's uranium dioxide (UO2) plant in-house stack sampling system and preventative maintenance program are needed after uranium emissions at the plant on June 29 potentially exceeded the action level. Based on a Cameco report, the CNSC determined the UO2 plant uranium emission rate was 7.21 gU/h (grams of uranium emissions per hour). Although this rate is well below the licensed limit of 150 gU/h, it is above the plant's action level of 7 gU/h."

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.

he argument that nuclear power can contribute to reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions that cause global climate change ("Ban on new nuclear power plants should be lifted" Oct. 16, Green Bay Press-Gazette) is flawed for three main reasons. First, nuclear power is not carbon-free electricity. At each stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining, milling, enrichment to construction, decommissioning and waste storage, nuclear power uses fossil fuels and contributes greenhouse gas emissions that accelerate global climate change. Compared to renewable energy, nuclear power releases four to five times the CO2 per unit of energy produced. A recent study of solutions to global warming by Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University concluded that over its entire lifecycle, nuclear electricity emits between 68 and 180 grams of CO2-equivalent emissions per kilowatt hour, compared to 3 to 11 grams for wind and concentrated solar.

he argument that nuclear power can contribute to reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions that cause global climate change ("Ban on new nuclear power plants should be lifted" Oct. 16, Green Bay Press-Gazette) is flawed for three main reasons. First, nuclear power is not carbon-free electricity. At each stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining, milling, enrichment to construction, decommissioning and waste storage, nuclear power uses fossil fuels and contributes greenhouse gas emissions that accelerate global climate change. Compared to renewable energy, nuclear power releases four to five times the CO2 per unit of energy produced. A recent study of solutions to global warming by Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University concluded that over its entire lifecycle, nuclear electricity emits between 68 and 180 grams of CO2-equivalent emissions per kilowatt hour, compared to 3 to 11 grams for wind and concentrated solar.

"THE POLITICIANS responsible for deciding on nuclear power have been tricked, according to one policy analyst. With the help of Finland's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK), nuclear power companies have propagated a misleading image of emission-free, or at least low-emission, nuclear power. "Nuclear power companies employ a strategy familiar from the tobacco industry. There is always some argument against damaging claims, problems are downplayed and critics demonised. A sort of Finlandisation prevails with regard to the nuclear sector," argues Mika Flöjt, an environmental and energy policy analyst at the University of Lapland. Flöjt works in a unit linked to the university's Arctic Centre. According to Flöjt, the claim of emission-free power has been touted by nuclear power companies, STUK and the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, and accepted without scrutiny."

China promised to slow its carbon emissions, saying it would nearly halve the ratio of pollution to GDP over the next decade - a major move by the world's largest emitter, whose cooperation is crucial to any deal as a global climate summit approaches. Beijing's voluntary pledge Thursday came a day after President Barack Obama promised the U.S. would lay out plans at the summit to substantially cut its own greenhouse gas emissions. Together, the announcements are building momentum for next month's meeting in Copenhagen. "Governments from all over the world are delivering before the climate conference," Denmark's Climate Minister Connie Hedegaard said. "U.S. and China have come forward. All across the globe, things are moving. This is good news."

China promised to slow its carbon emissions, saying it would nearly halve the ratio of pollution to GDP over the next decade - a major move by the world's largest emitter, whose cooperation is crucial to any deal as a global climate summit approaches. Beijing's voluntary pledge Thursday came a day after President Barack Obama promised the U.S. would lay out plans at the summit to substantially cut its own greenhouse gas emissions. Together, the announcements are building momentum for next month's meeting in Copenhagen. "Governments from all over the world are delivering before the climate conference," Denmark's Climate Minister Connie Hedegaard said. "U.S. and China have come forward. All across the globe, things are moving. This is good news."

There's still nowhere to put that toxic waste Nuclear electricity is affordable and emission free People opposed to nuclear energy applications point to the high initial price tag of enormous nuclear generating facilities that can … read more provide enough reliable electricity for several million people; they often overlook the resulting low cost per unit of power when spread over that large market. There are 104 nuclear plants operating in the US today. Many of us who are old enough to remember the controversies surrounding their construction can remember how many times we were told that nuclear power plants are frighteningly expensive and that they always cost more than predicted. We even remember that electrical power prices often increased immediately after the plants went into operation due to the effect of adding those big, expensive plants into the utility rate base. What many people who consider "news" media to be their only information sources rarely understand, however, is that the 104 plants currently operating provide the US with 20% of its electric power at an average production cost of about 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour. They also do not understand that after a few decades of operation and revenue production, the initial mortgages on those plants are largely paid off. The best information of all, which is not really "news" and does not get regularly published on the front page, is that the plants still have at least 20 years of life remaining during which they can produce emission free, low cost power. The companies that own the plants and their stock holders understand the economics pretty well; that is why 18 applications for 25 new plants have been turned into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission already with more in the pipeline. All of the used fuel - what some people call waste - is being carefully stored in a tiny corner of the existing sites, just waiting to be recycled into new fuel. It still contains 95% of its initial potential energy, but

There's still nowhere to put that toxic waste Nuclear electricity is affordable and emission free People opposed to nuclear energy applications point to the high initial price tag of enormous nuclear generating facilities that can … read more provide enough reliable electricity for several million people; they often overlook the resulting low cost per unit of power when spread over that large market. There are 104 nuclear plants operating in the US today. Many of us who are old enough to remember the controversies surrounding their construction can remember how many times we were told that nuclear power plants are frighteningly expensive and that they always cost more than predicted. We even remember that electrical power prices often increased immediately after the plants went into operation due to the effect of adding those big, expensive plants into the utility rate base. What many people who consider "news" media to be their only information sources rarely understand, however, is that the 104 plants currently operating provide the US with 20% of its electric power at an average production cost of about 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour. They also do not understand that after a few decades of operation and revenue production, the initial mortgages on those plants are largely paid off. The best information of all, which is not really "news" and does not get regularly published on the front page, is that the plants still have at least 20 years of life remaining during which they can produce emission free, low cost power. The companies that own the plants and their stock holders understand the economics pretty well; that is why 18 applications for 25 new plants have been turned into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission already with more in the pipeline. All of the used fuel - what some people call waste - is being carefully stored in a tiny corner of the existing sites, just waiting to be recycled into new fuel. It still contains 95% of its initial potential energy, but

Nuclear energy is one of the most effective ways to reach growing energy needs, reduce carbon dioxide emissions and create jobs, three energy leaders said today during a three-day summit to address the economic future of the nation. "A nuclear renaissance is under way," DTE Energy Chairman and CEO Anthony F. Earley Jr. told a group of energy leaders during the National Summit. "Nuclear energy has to play a crucial role in meeting our country's growing energy needs while reducing carbon emissions." With the nation's aging power facilities -- most average 30 years old and retirement expected between 40-60 years -- now is the time to reshape the energy mix of power facilities to include more nuclear plants, the energy leaders said. Advertisement "Every study that has been done says you can't come anywhere near where what you want to be in reducing greenhouse gas emissions without a large nuclear growth not only in the U.S., but worldwide," said Martin Fertel, president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute.

The white papers issued by the Japan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) and the Japan Nuclear Safety Commission (JNSC) highlight the difficult situation faced by Japan's nuclear power industry. The JAEC's 2008 white paper says that facility utilization rates at Japan's nuclear power plants dropped to a mere 60.7 percent in fiscal 2007 - in a sharp contrast to an increase of the rates in the last 10 years in the United States, Russia and France. If Japan's utilization rates had been higher, they would have reduced the nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Under the Kyoto Protocol, Japan is required to cut its emissions in the 2008-2012 period by 6 percent from the 1990 level. But its emissions in fiscal 2007 were 8.7 percent higher than the 1990 level.

"Bill Gates has called for a dramatic increase in R&D investment for low carbon technologies, including his own new pet project into advanced nuclear reactors, warning that developed countries will need to completely decarbonise the energy they use by 2050 if they are to avert the worst effects of climate change. Speaking at the annual TED Summit in California late last week, the billionaire philanthropist and Microsoft chairman, said the widely accepted goal of reducing carbon emissions by 50 to 80 per cent by mid-century was likely to prove insufficiently ambitious. Outlining the so-called COPSEC equation, which states that carbon emissions are a factor of population, services, energy and carbon per unit of energy, Gates argued that with population and consumption of services set to rise and improvements in energy efficiency able to go only so far, the way to deliver deep cuts in carbon emissions is to reduce CO2 per unit of energy to zero."

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 Opposition's desire to embrace nuclear power in the absence of an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax would result in electricity price rises of between 10 per cent and 33 per cent, according to estimates by the Howard government's nuclear energy expert, Ziggy Switkowski. In a report for John Howard in 2006, Dr Switkowski found nuclear power would never be commercially viable unless fossil fuel-generated electricity was made more expensive using an ETS or carbon tax. This resulted in Mr Howard embracing an emissions trading scheme as a way to reduce greenhouse gases while keeping open the nuclear option for the future.

THE Opposition's desire to embrace nuclear power in the absence of an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax would result in electricity price rises of between 10 per cent and 33 per cent, according to estimates by the Howard government's nuclear energy expert, Ziggy Switkowski. In a report for John Howard in 2006, Dr Switkowski found nuclear power would never be commercially viable unless fossil fuel-generated electricity was made more expensive using an ETS or carbon tax. This resulted in Mr Howard embracing an emissions trading scheme as a way to reduce greenhouse gases while keeping open the nuclear option for the future.

The solution according to members of CAUSE is sustainable energy in these three alternatives: wind, solar and geothermal. CAUSE totally supports other alternative forms of energy generation as stated in the Pembina Institute's Greening the Grid, Powering Alberta's Future with Renewable Energy. The informative piece can be found at: http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/greeningthegrid-report.pdf. Rather than follow the global agenda, Alberta and Canada have these options in Greening the Grid available to them and can use them in a big way. The question as to why global leaders are turning back the clock to reinvigorate a 50 year-old industry plagued with safety and cost issues is bewildering. They want a quick fix solution as a way to resolve the carbon emissions problem but Schacherl disputes this fact. "Nuclear is not emission free and it is definitely not a 'quick fix solution.' It takes a minimum of 10 years for a nuclear reactor to be approved and built and likely longer." As global leaders pour money into this 50 year-old problem-plagued industry, money needed for research and development for cleaner, safer energy alternatives, will be taken away.

The solution according to members of CAUSE is sustainable energy in these three alternatives: wind, solar and geothermal. CAUSE totally supports other alternative forms of energy generation as stated in the Pembina Institute's Greening the Grid, Powering Alberta's Future with Renewable Energy. The informative piece can be found at: http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/greeningthegrid-report.pdf. Rather than follow the global agenda, Alberta and Canada have these options in Greening the Grid available to them and can use them in a big way. The question as to why global leaders are turning back the clock to reinvigorate a 50 year-old industry plagued with safety and cost issues is bewildering. They want a quick fix solution as a way to resolve the carbon emissions problem but Schacherl disputes this fact. "Nuclear is not emission free and it is definitely not a 'quick fix solution.' It takes a minimum of 10 years for a nuclear reactor to be approved and built and likely longer." As global leaders pour money into this 50 year-old problem-plagued industry, money needed for research and development for cleaner, safer energy alternatives, will be taken away.

Some claim that nuclear energy has become safer and that the public is more accepting of it because it releases less emissions into the air compared to coal. As for the benefits of nuclear energy, Schacherl has strong views on this too. "Nuclear energy has no benefits to the public, not even in lower CO2 emissions when the full nuclear cycle is taken into effect. Nuclear is expensive and dangerous, and the only benefit is to the nuclear industry itself. The claim that the third generation reactors are safer is just a joke, since none of them have ever been built and for the ACR1000, not even the design is completed. How can you claim they are safer when the safety analysis showing the probability of a nuclear accident has not even been completed?" Schacherl is emphatic that nuclear energy be phased out and replaced by renewable energy that is safer, more cost-effective and sustainable. Schacherl also encourages the public to do their homework since there is a lot of misinformation out there. "The provincial government's nuclear panel report was full of misinformation. Albertans should do their own research on nuclear. The nuclear industry provides very little solid, factual information. They just ask us to trust them."

Some claim that nuclear energy has become safer and that the public is more accepting of it because it releases less emissions into the air compared to coal. As for the benefits of nuclear energy, Schacherl has strong views on this too. "Nuclear energy has no benefits to the public, not even in lower CO2 emissions when the full nuclear cycle is taken into effect. Nuclear is expensive and dangerous, and the only benefit is to the nuclear industry itself. The claim that the third generation reactors are safer is just a joke, since none of them have ever been built and for the ACR1000, not even the design is completed. How can you claim they are safer when the safety analysis showing the probability of a nuclear accident has not even been completed?" Schacherl is emphatic that nuclear energy be phased out and replaced by renewable energy that is safer, more cost-effective and sustainable. Schacherl also encourages the public to do their homework since there is a lot of misinformation out there. "The provincial government's nuclear panel report was full of misinformation. Albertans should do their own research on nuclear. The nuclear industry provides very little solid, factual information. They just ask us to trust them."

There are three main problems with the nuclear "solution" to climate change - it is a blunt instrument, a dangerous one, and it is unnecessary. First, nuclear power could at most make a modest contribution to climate change abatement. The main limitation is that it is used almost exclusively for electricity generation, which accounts for about one-quarter of global greenhouse emissions. Doubling global nuclear power output by mid-century at the expense of coal would reduce greenhouse emissions by about 5%.

There are three main problems with the nuclear "solution" to climate change - it is a blunt instrument, a dangerous one, and it is unnecessary. First, nuclear power could at most make a modest contribution to climate change abatement. The main limitation is that it is used almost exclusively for electricity generation, which accounts for about one-quarter of global greenhouse emissions. Doubling global nuclear power output by mid-century at the expense of coal would reduce greenhouse emissions by about 5%.

FRANCE, the world's most nuclearised country, has backed a nuclear power industry in Australia. The French government's environment ambassador Laurent Stefanini says nuclear power is a good fit for a country that has the world's largest uranium reserves. Mr Stefanini said that going nuclear is a reliable and useful way to avoid greenhouse gas emissions, and there have been no major accidents in France. Nearly 80 per cent of France's electricity comes from nuclear reactors and its emissions are about one-third of Australia's on a per capita basis.

FRANCE, the world's most nuclearised country, has backed a nuclear power industry in Australia. The French government's environment ambassador Laurent Stefanini says nuclear power is a good fit for a country that has the world's largest uranium reserves. Mr Stefanini said that going nuclear is a reliable and useful way to avoid greenhouse gas emissions, and there have been no major accidents in France. Nearly 80 per cent of France's electricity comes from nuclear reactors and its emissions are about one-third of Australia's on a per capita basis.

Radioactive gas emissions from a nuclear plant in southeast France were higher than normal in June and July but there was no threat to public safety, nuclear authorities said on Wednesday. The gas emissions occurred at a waste reprocessing installation at the Tricastin nuclear site in southeastern France, where a separate uranium leak was reported last month.

State Attorney General William Sorrell says Vermont Yankee's zero-carbon-emissions claim is inaccurate. The nuclear plant in Vernon claimed to have zero emissions in advertisements last year, prompting a complaint by the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. Sorrell said he looked into the claim and found that, althoughemissions generated by electricity production at nuclear plants are negligible, they occur when uranium is mined, processed and transported for use as fuel.

"Two Republican US senators Monday introduced a bill that would increase the use of natural gas, nuclear power and electric vehicles as a means of reducing the US power sector's air emissions and building domestic energy supply without specifically targeting greenhouse gas emissions. Senators Richard Burr of North Carolina and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, said their bill (S. 3535) would move the country toward cleaner domestic fuel sources through financial incentives. According to a bill summary, the measure would expand US use of natural gas with incentives for vehicles run by the fuel, including requirements for federal purchases of natural-gas fueled vehicles and extending income tax credit for vehicle purchases. For nuclear power, the bill would increase loan guarantees, provide a 15-year accelerated depreciation period for new plants, a 10% investment tax credit and launch a policy for recycling spent nuclear fuel. "

Article Highlights Energy Secretary-designate Steven Chu's most daunting challenge may be reforming the department. Energy's existing structure isn't well-suited to ushering in a new energy future for the country. Only by completely restructuring the department can real change in this area be made. As a Nobel laureate in physics and a respected advocate for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Steven Chu, President-elect Barack Obama's choice for energy secretary, appears to be well suited to carrying out Obama's pledge to generate new green energy jobs and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. But among Chu's most daunting challenges will be reforming the Energy Department itself. Created in 1977 in response to oil disruptions, Energy has done little since to stem the country's burgeoning energy problems. With about 5.5 percent of the world's population, the United States consumes more oil than any other nation, three-fourths of which comes from foreign sources. And as U.S. energy dependence has worsened, its greenhouse gas emissions have grown worse as well--increasing by 17 percent since 1990--accelerating potentially disastrous climate change.

* Global warming necessitates investment in low-emission, base-load electric generation alternatives, including new nuclear power plants. * International standards for safety and nonproliferation are necessary to ensure the successful development of new plants. * Nuclear weapon states need to strive to meet disarmament commitments to support nonproliferation efforts. Global warming necessitates the development of new forms of low-emissions, base-load power generating capacity. To assess the financial, regulatory, and proliferation concerns confronting nuclear energy and to develop strategies for addressing the barriers to the deployment of new reactors, in late September 2008, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists convened nearly 40 scientists, policy makers, industry representatives, and nongovernmental experts from around the world. The meeting was cosponsored by the University of Chicago, Argonne National Laboratory, and the Chicago Council on Science and Technology. A subset of the meeting's participants developed the following findings and recommendations based upon the presentations and discussions at the meeting. These findings and recommendations do not represent the views of all of the meeting participants or sponsors. Conference participants who endorse this document are listed at the bottom.