Group items tagged

Members of the state's main energy policy and planning agency spoke out against the decision by Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to apply to renew the company's operating license for the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant before addressing their concerns. The topic came up at a Dec. 16 California Energy Commission (CEC) hearing in Sacramento for the adoption of he 2009 Integrated Energy Policy Report, which outlines and analyzes energy-related issues affecting the state. CEC Vice Chair James Boyd chastised PG&E and contrasted their behavior with that of Southern California Edison Co., which operates the nuclear generating station in San Onofre. "I'm very disappointed … with what PG&E has done," CEC Vice Chair James Boyd said at the hearing. "I think now it's time to single out Edison for their statement of wanting to collaborate and cooperate on all the commitments while another utility has chosen to … kind of go around behind us. "I can't speak for Commissioner [Jeffrey] Byron, but I for one know there was great disappointment with that action," Boyd said. "But we'll address it in due time."

Members of the state's main energy policy and planning agency spoke out against the decision by Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to apply to renew the company's operating license for the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant before addressing their concerns. The topic came up at a Dec. 16 California Energy Commission (CEC) hearing in Sacramento for the adoption of he 2009 Integrated Energy Policy Report, which outlines and analyzes energy-related issues affecting the state. CEC Vice Chair James Boyd chastised PG&E and contrasted their behavior with that of Southern California Edison Co., which operates the nuclear generating station in San Onofre. "I'm very disappointed … with what PG&E has done," CEC Vice Chair James Boyd said at the hearing. "I think now it's time to single out Edison for their statement of wanting to collaborate and cooperate on all the commitments while another utility has chosen to … kind of go around behind us. "I can't speak for Commissioner [Jeffrey] Byron, but I for one know there was great disappointment with that action," Boyd said. "But we'll address it in due time."

Almost every vision of a world with much less greenhouse gas includes nuclear power. And no wonder: Nuclear power has the lowest carbon footprint of any stable and substantial energy source. True, nuclear technology presents challenges of its own, but as the world focuses on climate change, nuclear technology becomes more and more appealing. So this might seem like a strange time for the federal government to be selling off the nuclear-reactor branch of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. But, in fact, the long-expected pasting of a "For Sale" sign onto the reactor side of AECL is just the right thing for Ottawa to be doing.

Almost every vision of a world with much less greenhouse gas includes nuclear power. And no wonder: Nuclear power has the lowest carbon footprint of any stable and substantial energy source. True, nuclear technology presents challenges of its own, but as the world focuses on climate change, nuclear technology becomes more and more appealing. So this might seem like a strange time for the federal government to be selling off the nuclear-reactor branch of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. But, in fact, the long-expected pasting of a "For Sale" sign onto the reactor side of AECL is just the right thing for Ottawa to be doing.

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.

Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key administration posts: * Patricia A. Hoffman, Assistant Secretary for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Department of Energy * Mari Del Carmen Aponte, Ambassador to the Republic of El Salvador, Department of State * Donald E. Booth, Ambassador to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Department of State * Larry Persily, Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects President Obama said, "The depth of experience these individuals bring to their roles will be valuable to my administration as we work to bring about real change for the American people. I look forward to working with them in the months and years ahead."

Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key administration posts: * Patricia A. Hoffman, Assistant Secretary for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Department of Energy * Mari Del Carmen Aponte, Ambassador to the Republic of El Salvador, Department of State * Donald E. Booth, Ambassador to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Department of State * Larry Persily, Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects President Obama said, "The depth of experience these individuals bring to their roles will be valuable to my administration as we work to bring about real change for the American people. I look forward to working with them in the months and years ahead."

Senators trying to craft bipartisan climate legislation offered a revised proposal Thursday that would add incentives for building nuclear power plants and open the way for expanded oil and gas drilling off the nation's coastlines in hopes of attracting wider support. The new framework for a Senate climate bill would ease back requirements for early reductions of greenhouse gases. It calls for cuts in the range of 17 percent by 2020, instead of 20 percent, similar to reductions already approved by the House and what Obama will call for at an international climate conference in Copenhagen. "We would like to underscore the fact that the framework we are releasing today is a starting point for our negotiations going forward," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

Senators trying to craft bipartisan climate legislation offered a revised proposal Thursday that would add incentives for building nuclear power plants and open the way for expanded oil and gas drilling off the nation's coastlines in hopes of attracting wider support. The new framework for a Senate climate bill would ease back requirements for early reductions of greenhouse gases. It calls for cuts in the range of 17 percent by 2020, instead of 20 percent, similar to reductions already approved by the House and what Obama will call for at an international climate conference in Copenhagen. "We would like to underscore the fact that the framework we are releasing today is a starting point for our negotiations going forward," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

Clearly, Sen. Bob Bennett has been in office for a very long time. Consider these contributions to his 2010 re-election campaign from corporate and individual special interests (selected from www.opensecrets.org): oil and gas, $116,650; waste management (nuclear), $51,900; securities and investments, $233,850; commercial banks, $130,725; finance/credit companies, $61,900; insurance, $182,700; food processing and sales, $28,900; defense aerospace, $39,000; defense electronics, $16,000; health services/HMOs, $17,750; pharmaceuticals/health products, $104,044; telecommunication services and equipment, $815,250; lawyers/law firms, $110,900; lobbyists, $157,186; automotive, $16,997; chemical and related manufacturing, $11,200. Given all this special-interest support, it seems Bennett does not serve his constituents.

Clearly, Sen. Bob Bennett has been in office for a very long time. Consider these contributions to his 2010 re-election campaign from corporate and individual special interests (selected from www.opensecrets.org): oil and gas, $116,650; waste management (nuclear), $51,900; securities and investments, $233,850; commercial banks, $130,725; finance/credit companies, $61,900; insurance, $182,700; food processing and sales, $28,900; defense aerospace, $39,000; defense electronics, $16,000; health services/HMOs, $17,750; pharmaceuticals/health products, $104,044; telecommunication services and equipment, $815,250; lawyers/law firms, $110,900; lobbyists, $157,186; automotive, $16,997; chemical and related manufacturing, $11,200. Given all this special-interest support, it seems Bennett does not serve his constituents.

The industry is angling for 25 to 30 new plants, loan guarantees and fuel recycling. To meet the current goals for greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. would have to build 187 new nuclear plants by 2050, according to former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, who now co-chairs the Case Energy Coalition, which advocates increased nuclear power in the U.S. But the industry will settle for 25 to 30 by 2030, she said. That would be enough to meet the expected growth in demand for electricity in the U.S. while keeping nuclear around 20 percent of the mix. The U.S. currently has 104 reactors.

The industry is angling for 25 to 30 new plants, loan guarantees and fuel recycling. To meet the current goals for greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. would have to build 187 new nuclear plants by 2050, according to former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, who now co-chairs the Case Energy Coalition, which advocates increased nuclear power in the U.S. But the industry will settle for 25 to 30 by 2030, she said. That would be enough to meet the expected growth in demand for electricity in the U.S. while keeping nuclear around 20 percent of the mix. The U.S. currently has 104 reactors.

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

"They've tried nearly everything else to seal the disastrous oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, so why not just nuke it? No, that's not an original idea. In fact, you can read that suggestion on the pages of one of Russia's leading daily newspapers, Komsomoloskaya Pravda, which claims that the Soviets deployed specially-designed nuclear explosions to extinguish well fires on at least five separate occasions. The idea was to harness the impact of the explosions that, among other things, would push tons of rocks into place and seal any leaks. The newspaper reports that authorities used a 30 ton atomic explosion triggered at an underground depth of six kilometers on Sept. 30, 1966, to extinguish burning gas wells in Urt-Bulak, an area about 80 kilometers from Bukhara. "

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is raising safety concerns a proposed new reactor designed by Westinghouse, two of which South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. and Santee Cooper plan to install at their existing plant north of Columbia. A key part of the reactor may not withstand a tornado, earthquake or even high winds, NRC said. The commission staff has directed Westinghouse to make changes in the reactor design so its outer shell, which protects the reactor's containment structure, is strengthened. The staff concluded the steel and concrete structure of the AAP-1000 reactor does not meet safety design requirements. SCE&G spokesman Robert Yanity said Thursday the redesign is not expected to affect the schedule of the South Carolina reactors, which are set to come online by 2016 and 2019, respectively. The project at the V.C. Summer nuclear station near Jenkinsville is projected to cost $10 billion. Utility officials hope to have a combined operating and construction license in hand by 2011.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is raising safety concerns a proposed new reactor designed by Westinghouse, two of which South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. and Santee Cooper plan to install at their existing plant north of Columbia. A key part of the reactor may not withstand a tornado, earthquake or even high winds, NRC said. The commission staff has directed Westinghouse to make changes in the reactor design so its outer shell, which protects the reactor's containment structure, is strengthened. The staff concluded the steel and concrete structure of the AAP-1000 reactor does not meet safety design requirements. SCE&G spokesman Robert Yanity said Thursday the redesign is not expected to affect the schedule of the South Carolina reactors, which are set to come online by 2016 and 2019, respectively. The project at the V.C. Summer nuclear station near Jenkinsville is projected to cost $10 billion. Utility officials hope to have a combined operating and construction license in hand by 2011.

Florida Power & Light customers will pay nearly $63 million next year to cover the cost of planning two nuclear plant expansions. That's 67 cents per month in nuclear costs for the first 1,000 kilowatt hours used, but it's $1.60 less per month for the first 1,000 kilowatt hours than customers paid this year for those costs, FPL officials said. Next year will be the second that FPL customers have paid for planning costs for the expansions. Last year, about $220 million was approved for this year. The Public Service Commission voted 3 to 1 on Friday to pass the costs to customers next year. During the meeting, some commissioners praised nuclear power as a cheap energy source that reduces the state's greenhouse gas emissions and its dependence on oil.

Florida Power & Light customers will pay nearly $63 million next year to cover the cost of planning two nuclear plant expansions. That's 67 cents per month in nuclear costs for the first 1,000 kilowatt hours used, but it's $1.60 less per month for the first 1,000 kilowatt hours than customers paid this year for those costs, FPL officials said. Next year will be the second that FPL customers have paid for planning costs for the expansions. Last year, about $220 million was approved for this year. The Public Service Commission voted 3 to 1 on Friday to pass the costs to customers next year. During the meeting, some commissioners praised nuclear power as a cheap energy source that reduces the state's greenhouse gas emissions and its dependence on oil.

Within the past year, estimates of the cost of nuclear power from a new generation of reactors have ranged from a low of 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to a high of 30 cents. This paper tackles the debate over the cost of building new nuclear reactors, with the key findings as follows: * The initial cost projections put out early in today's so-called "nuclear renaissance" were about one-third of what one would have expected, based on the nuclear reactors completed in the 1990s. * The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial "nuclear renaissance" projections. * There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors. Indeed, nuclear reactors are the worst option from the point of view of the consumer and society. * The low carbon sources that are less costly than nuclear include efficiency, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar thermal and natural gas. Solar photovoltaics that are presently more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade. Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, which are not presently available, are projected to be somewhat more costly than nuclear reactors. * Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh. * The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the reactors.

Within the past year, estimates of the cost of nuclear power from a new generation of reactors have ranged from a low of 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to a high of 30 cents. This paper tackles the debate over the cost of building new nuclear reactors, with the key findings as follows: * The initial cost projections put out early in today's so-called "nuclear renaissance" were about one-third of what one would have expected, based on the nuclear reactors completed in the 1990s. * The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial "nuclear renaissance" projections. * There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors. Indeed, nuclear reactors are the worst option from the point of view of the consumer and society. * The low carbon sources that are less costly than nuclear include efficiency, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar thermal and natural gas. Solar photovoltaics that are presently more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade. Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, which are not presently available, are projected to be somewhat more costly than nuclear reactors. * Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh. * The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the reactors.

Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee lambasted Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's veto of a bill that would have required three-dimensional mapping to explore earthquake fault zones near Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. Blakeslee submitted the bill last December, a month after the so-called Shoreline Fault was discovered less than a mile offshore from Diablo. The bill would have ordered Diablo Canyon's owner, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., to use the latest high-definition technologies to map the fault, including a technique called three-dimensional geophysical reflection mapping. The state was then to use that information to make recommendations on whether seismic strengthening was needed at the plant.

Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee lambasted Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's veto of a bill that would have required three-dimensional mapping to explore earthquake fault zones near Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. Blakeslee submitted the bill last December, a month after the so-called Shoreline Fault was discovered less than a mile offshore from Diablo. The bill would have ordered Diablo Canyon's owner, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., to use the latest high-definition technologies to map the fault, including a technique called three-dimensional geophysical reflection mapping. The state was then to use that information to make recommendations on whether seismic strengthening was needed at the plant.

Spain's top energy official said on Monday the country had enough spare generating capacity to phase out nuclear power stations in the medium term, in line with government policy. In recent years, Spain has subsidized renewable energy in order to cut its heavy dependence on fuel imports and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is now the world's third-biggest producer of wind power and the second-biggest of solar. Nuclear power is unpopular in Spain and both major political parties ruled out building new plants in last year's elections. "Investing in nuclear energy makes sense when there are problems in ensuring supply. In '99 or 2000 that was the case with our energy margin," Energy Secretary Pedro Marin told a conference on energy policy.

Spain's top energy official said on Monday the country had enough spare generating capacity to phase out nuclear power stations in the medium term, in line with government policy. In recent years, Spain has subsidized renewable energy in order to cut its heavy dependence on fuel imports and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is now the world's third-biggest producer of wind power and the second-biggest of solar. Nuclear power is unpopular in Spain and both major political parties ruled out building new plants in last year's elections. "Investing in nuclear energy makes sense when there are problems in ensuring supply. In '99 or 2000 that was the case with our energy margin," Energy Secretary Pedro Marin told a conference on energy policy.

Domestic UK energy bills could rise by 60% by 2016 in a worst-case scenario identified by the energy regulator. However, most other estimates outlined in the Ofgem report would see prices rise between 14% and 25% above inflation by 2020. The review also said that up to £200bn of investment was needed to secure supplies and to meet carbon targets. Volatile gas markets and power stations nearing the end of their use were the chief concerns, the regulator said.

Domestic UK energy bills could rise by 60% by 2016 in a worst-case scenario identified by the energy regulator. However, most other estimates outlined in the Ofgem report would see prices rise between 14% and 25% above inflation by 2020. The review also said that up to £200bn of investment was needed to secure supplies and to meet carbon targets. Volatile gas markets and power stations nearing the end of their use were the chief concerns, the regulator said.

The third Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) Executive Committee meeting was held here on Friday, on which its member countries stressed to support a peaceful and safe use of nuclear energy. Zhang Guobao, director of the National Administration of Energy, presided over the meeting. In an opening address, Zhang said nuclear energy that is clear, safe and greenhouse gas emission-free, would play a crucial role in the world energy system. At the meeting, the Executive Committee reconfirmed that safety, security and non-proliferation were fundamental prerequisites for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. All partnership activities should be conducted in a manner to enhance them. According to the GNEP Joint Statement issued at the meeting, the partners will further strengthen cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and other relevant international organizations.

The third Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) Executive Committee meeting was held here on Friday, on which its member countries stressed to support a peaceful and safe use of nuclear energy. Zhang Guobao, director of the National Administration of Energy, presided over the meeting. In an opening address, Zhang said nuclear energy that is clear, safe and greenhouse gas emission-free, would play a crucial role in the world energy system. At the meeting, the Executive Committee reconfirmed that safety, security and non-proliferation were fundamental prerequisites for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. All partnership activities should be conducted in a manner to enhance them. According to the GNEP Joint Statement issued at the meeting, the partners will further strengthen cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and other relevant international organizations.

Not only does the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) objection last week to major problems in the AP1000 reactor design call into serious question the future of over half of proposed new reactors in the United States (14 of 25), it also means that it would be "grossly imprudent" for the Department of Energy (DOE) to proceed with its plans for loan guarantees for new reactors that are not finalized and licensed. Four experts delivered that stern warning during a news conference today urging the DOE to halt controversial plans to issue nuclear loan guarantees "soon," according to Energy Secretary Chu. These guarantees are part of the DOE's Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program. Two of the four new nuclear projects that the DOE is reported to be considering for taxpayer-backed loan guarantees are AP1000 designs proposed by the Southern Company at the Vogtle site in Georgia and the South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) V.C. Summer site.

Not only does the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) objection last week to major problems in the AP1000 reactor design call into serious question the future of over half of proposed new reactors in the United States (14 of 25), it also means that it would be "grossly imprudent" for the Department of Energy (DOE) to proceed with its plans for loan guarantees for new reactors that are not finalized and licensed. Four experts delivered that stern warning during a news conference today urging the DOE to halt controversial plans to issue nuclear loan guarantees "soon," according to Energy Secretary Chu. These guarantees are part of the DOE's Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program. Two of the four new nuclear projects that the DOE is reported to be considering for taxpayer-backed loan guarantees are AP1000 designs proposed by the Southern Company at the Vogtle site in Georgia and the South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) V.C. Summer site.

The government will today identify further sites around Britain that could be suitable for building a nuclear plant, as part of a scheme to fast track a new generation of reactors. Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change secretary, will unveil a series of national policy statements setting out the need for new energy infrastructure including renewables, fossil fuels and gas, as well as an overarching energy statement which will include climate change policy. A separate strategy statement on the nation's ports will also be published. Miliband will stress what the government believes to be the importance of a diverse energy supply. But the most detail will given in the nuclear policy statement, which will include a forensic assessment of the 11 sites already nominated by energy firms as well as identifying alternatives. "Because nuclear is controversial, we wanted to make it quite clear where the sites we consider suitable are," said one official.

The government will today identify further sites around Britain that could be suitable for building a nuclear plant, as part of a scheme to fast track a new generation of reactors. Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change secretary, will unveil a series of national policy statements setting out the need for new energy infrastructure including renewables, fossil fuels and gas, as well as an overarching energy statement which will include climate change policy. A separate strategy statement on the nation's ports will also be published. Miliband will stress what the government believes to be the importance of a diverse energy supply. But the most detail will given in the nuclear policy statement, which will include a forensic assessment of the 11 sites already nominated by energy firms as well as identifying alternatives. "Because nuclear is controversial, we wanted to make it quite clear where the sites we consider suitable are," said one official.

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.

The Maryland Public Service Commission has approved EDF's 50% purchase of Constellation Energy that could lead to the construction of an EPR at Calvert Cliffs, provided the two utilities meet several conditions. First, they must hand residential ratepayers a $110 million rebate before March 2010. Second, the utilities must invest $250 million cash in Baltimore Gas & Electricity, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Constellation Energy, before July 2010. There were several other additional financial stipulations. In September, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the investment structure and license transfer related to EDF's investment in Constellation Energy Nuclear Group. The New York State Public Service Commission approved the deal in April.

The Maryland Public Service Commission has approved EDF's 50% purchase of Constellation Energy that could lead to the construction of an EPR at Calvert Cliffs, provided the two utilities meet several conditions. First, they must hand residential ratepayers a $110 million rebate before March 2010. Second, the utilities must invest $250 million cash in Baltimore Gas & Electricity, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Constellation Energy, before July 2010. There were several other additional financial stipulations. In September, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the investment structure and license transfer related to EDF's investment in Constellation Energy Nuclear Group. The New York State Public Service Commission approved the deal in April.