Group items tagged

Most Texas homes weren't built as if energy mattered. Despite 100-degree summer days, our roofs are still covered in heat-absorbing black-tar shingles. Cheap insulation in the attic, leaky doors, and single-paned windows mean when the air conditioner runs, it runs loads of cooled air right out the house. San Antonio's CPS Energy plans to spend $850 million to eliminate 771 megawatts of wasteful energy consumption through weatherization programs and rebates to help residential and commercial customers replace lights and appliances, and hoist solar panels onto their roofs by 2020. To do that will cost roughly $1,100 per saved kilowatt, according to the utility. However, 80 miles to the northeast, municipally owned Austin Energy has already cut 800 megawatts through energy efficiency over the last 20 years at a cost of roughly $350 per kilowatt, said Scott Jarman, consulting engineer with Austin Energy's efficiency program. But after 20 years of efficiency work, the savings are increasingly hard to find, and accordingly, more costly.

Most Texas homes weren't built as if energy mattered. Despite 100-degree summer days, our roofs are still covered in heat-absorbing black-tar shingles. Cheap insulation in the attic, leaky doors, and single-paned windows mean when the air conditioner runs, it runs loads of cooled air right out the house. San Antonio's CPS Energy plans to spend $850 million to eliminate 771 megawatts of wasteful energy consumption through weatherization programs and rebates to help residential and commercial customers replace lights and appliances, and hoist solar panels onto their roofs by 2020. To do that will cost roughly $1,100 per saved kilowatt, according to the utility. However, 80 miles to the northeast, municipally owned Austin Energy has already cut 800 megawatts through energy efficiency over the last 20 years at a cost of roughly $350 per kilowatt, said Scott Jarman, consulting engineer with Austin Energy's efficiency program. But after 20 years of efficiency work, the savings are increasingly hard to find, and accordingly, more costly.

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.

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.

Reuters) - Several people who could serve as energy secretary in U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration already have been mentioned by Washington insiders, lobbyists and blog writers, including: * U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He advocates renewable energy and energy efficiency measures. * Wesley Clark, retired Army general and former NATO commander who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004. * General Electric Co Chief Executive Jeff Immelt, who says government investment in environmental technologies can create green jobs. * Ray Mabus, former Democratic Governor of Mississippi and U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil producer. He served as a senior adviser to the Obama campaign. * U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. A long-time critic of OPEC and nuclear power, he supported higher fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. * Dan Reicher, director of climate change and energy initiatives at Google.org. A former assistant energy secretary under President Bill Clinton, he wants more U.S. electricity generated by renewable sources and promotes plug-in vehicles. * Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat who has called for a $850 million state Energy Independence Fund to invest in clean energy projects and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. * Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat who is a big promoter of developing liquid fuel from coal. * Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat who fought efforts to allow a coal-fired power plant to expand in her state, saying it would spew more greenhouse gas emissions.

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 Mark Cooper, Ph.D., 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 Mark Cooper, Ph.D., 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.

Scotland's energy future should be based on non-nuclear sources. The SNP today welcomed a report from the Parliament's Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee which supported the Scottish Government's plans for Scotland to build a clean, green and renewable energy future as SNP MSP Rob Gibson called for the UK Government to release £150 million of potential investment in Scotland's energy future. In their report the Committee state that;"Scotland does not need a new generation of nuclear power stations to be constructed and sees Scotland's energy future as one that seeks to increase markedly investments in energy efficiency, in renewable energy, in cleaner renewable or fossil-fuel fired thermal plant, such as combined heat and power and district heating, energy-from-waste plants and which, if necessary, supports the construction of a new generation of larger fossil-fuel fired plants with carbon capture technologies."

Republicans on the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said Wednesday that panel Chairman Jeff Bingaman has agreed to include some incentives for new nuclear energy projects, clean coal and waste-to-energy in a renewable electricity mandate, though the change will not be enough to satisfy most of the panel's minority party members. The committee will vote on amendments Thursday, with a final vote on the full energy bill due as early as next week. Changes made to the renewable electricity standard will likely garner enough support to clear the committee, though only Kansas Republican Sam Brownback is considered likely to vote with Democrats in favor of the measure. In its current form, the RES supported by Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat, and most or all of the panel's other Democrats would require utilities to derive 11% of their output from renewable energy and 4% from energy efficiency improvements. Robert Dillon, a spokesman for the panel's top Republican Lisa Murkowski, said that Bingaman had also agreed to take all new nuclear energy projects out of a utility's baseline, reducing the amount of renewable energy required to meet the standard. Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, would like existing nuclear energy to receive the same treatment.

Twelve Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Energy and Support a Green Energy Future We have a complete set of energy solutions: solar cells, wind turbines, concentrating solar, ocean current and wave energy, energy efficiency, and the list goes on.(1) As these technologies mature, we can quickly reduce nuclear and coal usage and, in the future, cut oil and natural gas use. The most environmentally and economically destructive sources of electricity should be reduced now, as other technologies emerge. The phase-out of nuclear and coal energy will reduce global warming while freeing up monies for renewables and efficiencies.

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.

President Barack Obama has made no secret of his desire to develop a "green economy" that includes renewable energy projects meant to benefit the environment. He has said that part of the economic recovery in the U.S. will come from money for, and jobs created by, renewable energy projects. Around the world, politicians, businesses and scientists are developing the technology that could improve the cost-efficiency of renewable energy. One would expect that -- over time -- the costs associated with renewable energy would go down. With fossil fuels, costs can only go up as the un-renewable sources dwindle and become more scarce even as demand rises. Here are 5 feasible renewable energy sources that could be developed to help meet world energy needs:

The US Department of Energy on Wednesday said it would use $44 million to fund 71 nuclear energy research and development projects. The funding will go to 31 universities and fund projects for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, the Next Generation Nuclear Plant, Light Water Reactor Sustainability, as well as Investigator-Initiated Research, according to DOE. "As a zero-carbon energy source, nuclear power must be part of our energy mix as we work toward energy independence and meeting the challenge of global warming," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement. "The next generation of nuclear power plants -- with the highest standards of safety, efficiency and environmental protection -- will require the latest advancements in nuclear science and technology." Chu has voiced his support for nuclear energy since becoming energy secretary in January, but the administration's decision to stop pursuing a national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain has led some to charge that DOE no longer supports nuclear power. The $44 million in funding announced Wednesday will be provided over three years and the project contracts will be awarded by Idaho National Laboratory contractor Battelle at the end of September.

"The Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration would receive a 13 percent increase to $11.2 billion in 2011 to support the Obama administration's efforts to manage the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons and achieve the president's goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear material in the world within four years. Overall, the department's discretionary budget would increase more than 7 percent to $28.4 billion. Energy programs outside of NNSA would increase less than 3 percent overall. The budget proposes $300 million for the new Advanced Projects Research Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), which would bankroll cutting-edge advanced energy technologies that will reduce the country's dependence on foreign energy imports and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ARPA-E, which was modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, was created in 2007 but only recently funded with an initial $400 million from the Recovery Act. Energy's budget proposes $5.1 billion for science research, an additional $217 million; $108 million above the $371 million approved this year to advance research into wind, solar and geothermal energy sources; and $500 million in credit subsidies that would support between $3 billion and $5 billion in energy-efficiency and renewable-energy projects."

Since 2007, there have been applications to license 26 new nuclear reactors in the US. Nine have been canceled or suspended indefinitely in the last 10 months, and 10 have been delayed 1-5 years. Why? Because, as almost always happens with nuclear plants, they end up being much more expensive than original plans project. In these cases, costs over-runs were triple that of estimates, while the price for natural gas declined, making them even less attractive. And, importantly, energy efficiency programs combined with reduced energy demand because of the recession dramatically reduced the need for new power supplies. Nuclear looks good to lots of people - and Republicans are demanding strong incentives for it in the Senate Climate Bill - but the history of nuclear is frought with significant cost over-runs, multiple delays and cancellations. It's a fact that energy efficiency combined with renewable energy sources such as solar and wind are much faster to ramp up and much cheaper.

Since 2007, there have been applications to license 26 new nuclear reactors in the US. Nine have been canceled or suspended indefinitely in the last 10 months, and 10 have been delayed 1-5 years. Why? Because, as almost always happens with nuclear plants, they end up being much more expensive than original plans project. In these cases, costs over-runs were triple that of estimates, while the price for natural gas declined, making them even less attractive. And, importantly, energy efficiency programs combined with reduced energy demand because of the recession dramatically reduced the need for new power supplies. Nuclear looks good to lots of people - and Republicans are demanding strong incentives for it in the Senate Climate Bill - but the history of nuclear is frought with significant cost over-runs, multiple delays and cancellations. It's a fact that energy efficiency combined with renewable energy sources such as solar and wind are much faster to ramp up and much cheaper.

"Making good on a promise made during last week's State of the Union address, President Obama has included new money for what he describes as clean energy development. That includes authorization for the Department of Energy to guarantee loans for new nuclear power plants. This money is not a direct payment but will be available to back up investments in what many regard as a financially risky enterprise. The spending comes as DOE appoints a commission to study how to dispose of high-level nuclear waste. Last year the administration decided to end efforts to bury it at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The budget also extends credit subsidies for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. Spending on renewable energy projects will also rise for solar, biofuels and energy efficient buildings. "

Tories court property owners with promise of free cost-saving home improvement scheme and pledge 'immediate action to to keep Britain's lights on' The Conservative party annual conference in Manchester. Photograph: Christopher Thomond Every UK homeowners will benefit from an allowance of up to £6,500 to make their properties more energy efficient, under a "green deal" proposed by the Conservatives today. The idea is part of a wider energy and climate change package aimed at kick-starting a green economy in the UK. The shadow energy and climate change secretary, Greg Clark, said a Tory government would immediately approve construction of several nuclear and coal-fired power stations to help prevent electricity blackouts in the next decade, to strengthen the national grid and enable the harnessing of renewable energy sources at sea, and to boost the number of charging points for electric cars.

Tories court property owners with promise of free cost-saving home improvement scheme and pledge 'immediate action to to keep Britain's lights on' The Conservative party annual conference in Manchester. Photograph: Christopher Thomond Every UK homeowners will benefit from an allowance of up to £6,500 to make their properties more energy efficient, under a "green deal" proposed by the Conservatives today. The idea is part of a wider energy and climate change package aimed at kick-starting a green economy in the UK. The shadow energy and climate change secretary, Greg Clark, said a Tory government would immediately approve construction of several nuclear and coal-fired power stations to help prevent electricity blackouts in the next decade, to strengthen the national grid and enable the harnessing of renewable energy sources at sea, and to boost the number of charging points for electric cars.

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.

--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.

"In the most "Woody Allen esque" protest I've seen in a while, 50 activists dressed as renewable energy sources (sun, wind, water) used a fire truck to get into one of the dodgiest nuclear plants in Sweden. I'm going in! They want their govenment to follow through on a decades old national referendum to phase out nuclear power. The Swedish parliment will vote this week on whether to stick to the nuclear power phase out, or backslide and open the door to new reactors. Our man in Sweden says: "The Swedish parliament is risking the country's reputation and position as a progressive leader in clean and safe energy development. All the evidence shows that nuclear power is a dangerous, expensive and dead-end distraction from the real solutions to climate protection and energy security. Reactors are standing in the way of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs." -- Ludvig Tillman, energy campaigner for Greenpeace Nordic."

A subsidy represents a transfer of Federal Government resources to the buyer or seller of a good or service that has the effect of reducing the price paid, increasing the price received, or reducing the cost of production of the good or service. Put simply, the Federal Government promotes targeted energy outcomes, such as production of a specific fuel or promotion of conservation and energy efficiency by energy consumers through incentives such as tax credits, grants, and low interest loans.

Nuclear power is among the most costly approaches to solving America's energy problems. Per dollar of investment, clean energy solutions - such as energy efficiency and renewable resources - deliver far more energy than nuclear power. This fact has important implications for America's energy policy. By directing resources toward the most cost-effective solutions, we can make greater progress toward a secure, reliable and safe sup- ply of electricity to power America's economy. Dollar for dollar, a clean energy portfolio can deliver more energy than nuclear power. Per dollar of investment: