Group items tagged

Kenya should tread carefully and not rush into investing in nuclear energy. Geothermal experts are now urging the government to instead invest, in the vast geothermal resources found in Kenya's rift valley system that has an estimated potential of 7000 megawatts. "Kenya should look for funds to invest fully in geothermal instead of nuclear energy, whereas nuclear energy is cheaper, it could be more devastating to the environment, we do not know what negative effects it might cause to generations to come," said Ludvik Georgsson of the United Nations University, Geothermal Training Program. Kenya's geothermal potential stands at an estimated 7,000 megawatts. However owing to the high cost of investment in the renewable energy the country has only managed to develop just under 130 megawatts, and now says Kenya could be assisted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development - OECD countries once the financial melt-down in pegged.

Coal and nuclear power could cost 30% more per year by 2025 than energy from concentrating solar and hot dry rock geothermal power, according to DESERTEC-Australia. "Concentrating solar power costs are falling rapidly. Geothermal costs are already low," says Roger Taylor, a researcher for renewable interest organisation DESERTEC-Australia. "Together or alone, solar and geothermal are better, more proven long-term deals for Australian consumers than 'clean' coal or 'next-generation' nuclear."

With only a few regulatory hurdles remaining, a nuclear power plant in Utah may not be that far off in the state's future. The state does, however, have other options, besides nuclear, with renewable energy sources ranging from solar, wind and geothermal, said Eric Spreng, community outreach coordinator for HEAL Utah. The Healthy Environment Alliance has scheduled a free presentation Thursday to cover the essential facts and discuss what it terms as "many of the myths" surrounding nuclear power as well as explore the vast untapped potential of renewable energy sources. "There is so much potential with wind, solar and geothermal and we are starting to see projects come on line," Spreng said. "I don't think nuclear is necessary with the green renewable technology."

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.

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.

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.

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.

The banquet room inside the city's lavishly refurbished Pearl Brewery is filled with solar advocates, coal-power people, city decision makers and bureaucrats, geothermal enthusiasts, and a table of Express-News staffers. They dine on salmon and judge in quiet gestures the performance of the panel at the front of the room. As a tense but generally amenable exchange between the nuclear-energy proponents and the renewable-power disciples winds down, Matagorda County resident Susan Dancer steps from the shadows at the back of the room to steer the conversation, briefly, into dangerous waters. In a rapid-fire indictment of the entire course of the debate, Dancer drops the controversial "C" word. But cancer isn't on the menu at today's forum. In fact, the talk is almost entirely of money. For more than a year, the city has been drifting, in multi-million-dollar installments, into a second helping of nuclear power from the South Texas Project nuclear facility outside Bay City.

The banquet room inside the city's lavishly refurbished Pearl Brewery is filled with solar advocates, coal-power people, city decision makers and bureaucrats, geothermal enthusiasts, and a table of Express-News staffers. They dine on salmon and judge in quiet gestures the performance of the panel at the front of the room. As a tense but generally amenable exchange between the nuclear-energy proponents and the renewable-power disciples winds down, Matagorda County resident Susan Dancer steps from the shadows at the back of the room to steer the conversation, briefly, into dangerous waters. In a rapid-fire indictment of the entire course of the debate, Dancer drops the controversial "C" word. But cancer isn't on the menu at today's forum. In fact, the talk is almost entirely of money. For more than a year, the city has been drifting, in multi-million-dollar installments, into a second helping of nuclear power from the South Texas Project nuclear facility outside Bay City.

"Not Wales, or Scotland….they want renewables The Welsh Assembly Government's new Energy Policy Statement 'A Low Carbon Revolution', sets out an approach to accelerating the transition to a low carbon energy economy in Wales, focusing on efficiency measures and the use of indigenous renewable forms of energy such as marine, wind, solar and biomass. It claims that by 2025 around 40% of electricity in Wales could come from marine sources and a third from wind. In addition to local community-level micro-generation projects, it proposes the use of offshore wind around the coast of Wales in order to deliver a 15 kWh/d/p (per day per person) of capacity by 2015/16 and to capture at least 10% (8 kWh/d/p) of the potential tidal stream and wave energy off the Welsh coastline by 2025, and it wants onshore wind to deliver 4.5 kWh/d/p of installed onshore wind generation capacity by 2015/2017. It will back small-scale hydro and geothermal schemes, where they are environmentally acceptable, in order to generate at least 1 kWh/d/p, and wants bioenergy/waste to deliver up to 6 kWh/d/p of electricity by 2020- 50% indigenous/50% imported- also offering an additional heat potential of 2-2.5 kWh/d/p."

Several conservative Senate Republicans failed Tuesday to amend a resolution calling for the development of renewable energy sources to include nuclear power. SJR1, sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Pat Jones, D-Holladay, was approved 27-1 without the amendment and now goes to the House. Only Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem, voted against it. Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, had argued that nuclear power should be added to the list of renewable energy sources in the bill - wind, geothermal and solar. Buttars said leaving nuclear power off that list sent the message the state isn't interested in its development.

As we move toward a clean energy economy, we are going to need new priorities to assist in establishing an energy strategy supporting solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear power. With respect to priorities for increasing the production of nuclear-generated electricity, at the top of that list would be government incentives to revitalize U. S. companies that manufacture components for nuclear power plants and other alternative energy sources.

Energy-Secretary-Designate Steven Chu told a Senate Committee on Tuesday that the incoming administration would have an increased commitment to alternative energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal, but also made clear coal and nuclear would be part of the energy mix. Chu, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1997 and is currently director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, made the comments during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Chu is expected to win confirmation easily.

We are told that nuclear power is about to achieve a "green renaissance," "clean coal" is just around the corner, and municipal garbage is a "renewable resource," which, when burned, will yield "sustainable energy." On the other hand, sometimes we are told that solar, geothermal and tidal power are what we really need to "green" our energy system. How is a person to make sense of all these competing claims? Luckily, scientists have developed two sets of criteria that we can use to judge the "greenness" of competing technologies. The first is called "The 12 principles of green engineering" and the second is "The 12 principles of green chemistry."

In last Sunday's Nature Watch column, Gerry Rising displayed his own admitted lack of atomic energy expertise. Nuclear power is not carbon-free. It consumes more fossil fuels in the uranium mining, refining, fuel fabrication and actual power plant construction and operation processes per unit of installed generating capacity than do the trio of the cleanest alternative sources - wind, geothermal and solar - in their production and deployment. A dollar invested in wind produces more energy, leads to a greater reduction in carbon emissions and creates more jobs than one invested in nuclear power, according to experts.

It's hard to miss the bandwagon behind solar and wind power to solve our global warming and energy problems. Unfortunately, there is a penalty to be paid for these renewables. The reality is that there is a place in the electric grid for solar and wind, just as there is for hydroelectric and geothermal power. But alone, these alternate power sources do not provide the reliability necessary to prevent the possibility of interruptions in the nation's electric supply

The catch: Waste America's realization that it must kick its expensive foreign-oil habit has energized the previously moribund nuclear power industry, which is proudly selling itself as the cheaper, cleaner alternative. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering at least a dozen applications for new power plants, and it expects to receive 23 more applications within two years. Nuclear power should be included in the panoply of preferred alternatives to fossil fuels - along with wind, solar, geothermal, hyrdroelectric energy and anything else that weans the nation from its $700-billion-a-year taste for foreign oil.

NUCLEAR power is important for other countries, but not for energy rich Australia, Resources Minister Martin Ferguson says. Encouraging the development of geothermal energy, however, was exceptionally important, he said. The federal Opposition has reignited the nuclear energy debate, with frontbencher Ian McFarlane saying Australia must have nuclear power if it is to slash greenhouse gas emissions.

HB 2623 defines nuclear power as a "renewable resource", defying common sense and hurting our real fledgling renewable industries. If this bill is passed, it will kill existing incentives to continue to develop renewable energy, especially solar energy, and lead Arizona down the wrong road. The United States defines "renewable energy" as biomass, hydropower, geothermal, solar, wind, ocean thermal, wave action and tidal action. Not a single state defines nuclear power as "renewable" energy. Last year, an attempt in South Carolina to call nuclear "renewable" was defeated.

An effort in the Legislature that would redefine "renewable energy" to include nuclear power could do irreparable harm to the state's budding clean-energy industries and deserves to be thrown onto the trash heap of non-recyclable ideas. House Bill 2623, sponsored by Lucy Mason, R-Prescott, has several problems. First, it would include nuclear and hydroelectric power (dams) in the definition of "renewable energy," which is generally considered power derived from natural sources - such as the sun, wind, biomass, tides and geothermal heat.