Skip to main content

Home/ nuke.news/ Group items tagged geothermal

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Energy Net

Nuclear nonsense - Salt Lake Tribune - 0 views

www.sltrib.com/...ci_13226081

nuke.comments ut reactors

shared by Energy Net on 14 Sep 09 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 14 Sep 09
     
    Gov. Gary Herbert supports a full palette of energy options for Utah. The clean greens: solar, geothermal, wind. The dirty browns: coal, oil, natural gas. And the chameleon of electricity production, nuclear fission, which provides clean power but carries its own environmental and safety baggage. Nuclear power plants were popular until a near meltdown of a reactor in Pennsylvania in 1979 shocked the nation to its senses. There hasn't been a domestic plant built since. But in the rush to curb climate change, well-founded fears have been forgotten and a nuclear revival is underway. Nuclear power plants emit only water vapor and produce enough power to replace fossil fuels as a base-load provider of electricity. The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received applications for 26 new reactors and more are expected, including paperwork for a proposed plant near Green River in Emery County, which would be Utah's first.
Energy Net

TheStar.com | Opinion | Nuclear energy neither clean nor safe - 0 views

www.thestar.com/...660100

nuke.comments canada

shared by Energy Net on 06 Jul 09 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 06 Jul 09
     
    Several assumptions need to be corrected. Canada's energy mix is 59.8 per cent hydro, 16.1 per cent coal, 11.6 per cent nuclear, 6.7 per cent oil, 4.9 per cent natural gas and 0.9 per cent renewables. Hydro will continue to produce the same amount of electricity every year; however its proportion of the energy mix will decline due to net increases in demand. Wind generates power 30 per cent of the time, solar 20 per cent and other renewables 30 to 50 per cent. Replacing all nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources with renewables by 2040 would result in this mix: 47.2 per cent hydro; 13.8 per cent wind; 7.2 per cent solar; 5.5 per cent tidal/wave; 23.1 per cent geothermal; 3.2 per cent other renewables, such as biomass and waste water. This is a manageable expectation, especially in Ontario where we have made a commitment through the Green Energy Act. The GTA has made significant progress in both renewable sources of energy and energy conservation.
Energy Net

How to Speed Up DOE Loan Guarantees | Reuters - 0 views

www.reuters.com/...idUS183234687120090522

nuclear energy renewables doe loans nuke.news

shared by Energy Net on 24 May 09 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 24 May 09
     
    The energy industry has had it up to here with delays in the Department of Energy loan guarantee program. Like Energy Secretary Steven Chu, they want to get money moving pronto. So this week groups representing solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydro and nuclear power companies sent a letter (PDF) to key White House officials calling for the DOE and the budget office to make nice and eliminate some hurdles. They've laid out a game plan to make that happen.
Energy Net

Nuclear Power Bill Passes Senate : NorthEscambia.com - 0 views

www.northescambia.com/?p=7925

nuclear energy legislation fl pro-nuclear nuke.news

shared by Energy Net on 05 May 09 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 05 May 09
     
    ust over a month after NorthEscambia.com broke the story that Gulf Power Company is purchasing land in North Escambia for a possible nuclear power plant, the Florida Senate has passed a bill promoting so-called "clean power" - including nuclear - in the state. The bill was approved by the Senate 37-1 late last week. The energy bill requires electric utilities to meet or exceed specified standards for the production or purchase of clean energy. Clean energy production methods include wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydrogen, hydroelectric and nuclear, according to the bill. The bill will now head to the Florida House for approval.
Energy Net

GOP senator: US should build 100 new nuclear plants - 0 views

www.platts.com/...7828498.xml

nuclear energy politics nuke.news

shared by Energy Net on 29 Apr 09 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 29 Apr 09
     
    The US should build 100 new nuclear power plants, Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee said April 25. Alexander delivered the GOP's response to President Barack Obama's weekly address, which did not touch on energy issues. "You'd think that if Democrats want to talk about energy and climate change and clean air, they'd put American-made nuclear power front and center," Alexander said. "Instead, their answer is billions in subsidies for renewable energy" from solar, wind and geothermal, he said. But these sources provide only about 1.5% of US electricity supply, so even doubling or tripling their generation wouldn't contribute very much, Alexander said. "When Republicans say, build 100 new nuclear power plants during the next twenty years, Democrats say, no place to put the used nuclear fuel. We say, recycle the fuel -- the way France does. They say, no we can't," he said. A transcript of Alexander's remarks is online at http://www.gop.com/News/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=92504368-37ec-4d4e-94bb-9edc4fc332 50.
Energy Net

NNSA is biggest winner in proposed Energy Department budget - FederalTimes.com - 0 views

www.federaltimes.com/...AGENCY

nuclear energy n-weapons budget doe nnsa 2011 nuke.news

shared by Energy Net on 08 Feb 10 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 08 Feb 10
     
    "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."
Energy Net

The nuclear option is hardly a viable one | Viewpoints, Outlook | Chron.com - Houston C... - 0 views

www.chron.com/...6843645.html

nuke.comments tx

shared by Energy Net on 01 Feb 10 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 01 Feb 10
     
    "Nuclear power is not a viable answer to climate change. Houstonians and Texans have cheaper, smarter and safer ways to meet our energy needs. Nuclear power is heavily subsidized by taxpayers and ratepayers, is prone to delay and cost overruns, and incurs radioactive risks, including the apparent impossibility of safely storing radioactive waste. Nuclear reactors consume vast quantities of precious water. Investing billions of dollars in more nuclear power would divert funding that would be better spent on energy efficiency and safer, cleaner renewable energy such as solar, wind and geothermal."
Energy Net

HeraldNet: Nuclear power isn't clean or safe; it's a menace - 0 views

heraldnet.com/...701319993

nuke.comments

shared by Energy Net on 01 Feb 10 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 01 Feb 10
     
    "I am increasingly convinced that in order for us to survive the 21st century, we (individually and collectively) must accept two principles of living: 1) We are all connected to each other and to our environment. 2) All energy for our homes, firms, factories and farms must be clean and renewable. We probably have less than two generations to transition. Right now things are not looking good. We stand at a crossroads concerning how we fuel our vehicles and power our homes. Electric vehicles (EVs) are a good replacement for carbon-fueled cars, but only if we charge them with renewable energy (geothermal, wind, solar, tidal, even biomass). Any other approach will require greater demand for increasingly limited electricity. In fact, if every household in America suddenly bought an electric car averaging 5 kilowatt-hours to top off each day, household electric demand would increase about 20 percent (adding perhaps 10 percent more demand to an already overloaded grid nationally). "
Energy Net

Idaho Mountain Express: Nuclear power can be deadly for people, planet - March 3, 2010 - 0 views

www.mtexpress.com/index2.php

nuke.comments id

shared by Energy Net on 08 Mar 10 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 08 Mar 10
     
    "It's easy to get into a conversation about nuclear power in Idaho. After all, the Idaho National Laboratory is the nation's lead nuclear energy and research facility, touted by our senators and congressmen who assert that nuclear power is the solution to climate change. Chances are good that the power structure of the state, the nation and even some turncoat environmentalists will bole you over with glossy facts. A wise person will want to have his or her own stockpile of retorts to enliven the conversation. Consider these points: · Nuclear power plants, like coal-fired plants and natural gas, are about maintaining the infrastructure of centralized power and the habits of excessive consumption, which rely on big power while decimating the Earth. Localized, regionalized energy production from renewable sources-wind, solar, geothermal, biomass-involves the community in responsible energy consumption. "
Energy Net

Deep Green: Atomic renaissance interrupted | Greenpeace UK - 0 views

www.greenpeace.org.uk/...naissance-interrupted-20081203

nuclear energy greenpeace policy development uk europe nuke.news

shared by Energy Net on 06 Dec 08 - Cached
  • This fall, at Stanford University, Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson published a "Review of Global Warming Solutions," comparing the lifetime CO2-equivalent emissions of energy sources. Wind and concentrated solar emit between about 3 to 11 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity. Geothermal and conventional solar emit between 16 and 64 grams; wave, tidal and hydro power emit 34 to 71 grams. Nuclear electricity emits between 68 and 180 grams per kWh. Jacobson concludes that "Coal ... and nuclear offer less benefit [and] represent an opportunity cost loss."
  • Energy Net on 06 Dec 08
     
    The nuclear industry has hitched a ride on the climate change bandwagon, proclaiming that nuclear power will solve the world's global warming and energy problems in one sweeping "nuclear renaissance." As you might expect, there's a catch. Nuclear energy faces escalating capital costs, a radioactive waste backlog, security and insurance gaps, nuclear weapons proliferation, and expensive reactor decommissioning that will magnify the waste problem.
Energy Net

OpEdNews » Totally New Green Energy Source On a Par With Nuclear Power - 0 views

www.opednews.com/...S-by-bcmarshall-081115-77.html

energy energy.news geothermal

shared by Energy Net on 18 Nov 08 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 18 Nov 08
     
    Hydrothermal Vents Are the Solution Hydrothermal vents are naturally occurring geysers of superheated water, found along Mid-Ocean Ridges. These are points along the Tectonic Plates, huge tracts of the Earth's crust that move continents around, found where the plates are pulling away from each other. As the crust stretches and weakens, new volcanic crust from the earth's molten core, the magma, rises to create new crust.
Energy Net

Letters to the editor | NevadaAppeal: The true costs of nuclear energy are astronomical - 0 views

www.nevadaappeal.com/...1028&parentprofile=1061

shared by Energy Net on 29 Jul 08 - Cached
  • Nuclear reactors create radioactive waste that will remain radioactive for 240,000 years. The half life of plutonium 239 is 24,000 years, which only means that it will only be half as radioactive in 24,000 years. It will remain dangerous for 240,000 years. It has to be monitored for 240,000 years. There has never been a government in the history of humanity that has lasted 240,000 years. Mankind has barely been on the planet that long. Bury it in Nevada they say. 240,000 years ago Nevada was in the Pleistocene Age (ice age) and there were Mammoths and saber toothed cats. Mankind was in the Stone Age. How can we even begin to imagine what it will be 240,000 years in the future? One clue: if we accept all of the nuclear waste for those 240,000 years there won’t be any life forms here in Nevada. You may say of course we won’t be doing it for 240,000 years. How long will we be doing it? How much is too much? I would say any at all is too much. Until a clean method of recycling nuclear waste is in common use (not trying to stuff it somewhere, but actually making it safe), nuclear energy should not be used. If we don’t stop it, the developers will have a nuclear reactor in every state in the union, the waste will pile up exponentially. The developers will rake in billions of dollars. The rest of us will pay the real cost of their profit.Please support clean renewable sources of energy. Like wind, solar, geothermal, ocean wave action, use of the water cycle (evaporation, rain, river flow). Even use of human muscle. And please support the development of machines that use these clean renewable sources of energy. Lets not get into another disaster by burying ourselves in pollution.
  • Energy Net on 29 Jul 08
     
    Those who support nuclear energy claim it is inexpensive. The reason that they can claim that is that they only figure in the cost of generating the energy. If they figure in the cost of taking care of nuclear waste, then the cost is astronomical! But the developers only figure the cost of developing it and assume that the rest of us will pay the cost of 'disposing' of the waste. (It can't be disposed of.)
‹ Previous 21 - 32 of 32
Showing 20▼ items per page