Skip to main content

Home/ nuke.news/ Group items tagged nuclear

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Energy Net

Cooper Report on Nuclear Economics PDF - 0 views

www.vermontlaw.edu/...20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf

nuclear energy economics reactors report s5 nuke.news

shared by Energy Net on 19 Oct 09 - No Cached
  • Energy Net on 19 Oct 09
     
    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.
  • Energy Net on 19 Oct 09
     
    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.
Energy Net

Reportlinker Adds Nuclear Energy Report, ed.2, 2009 Report | Reuters - 0 views

www.reuters.com/...US89487+14-Oct-2009+BW20091014

nuclear energy reports resources nuke.news

shared by Energy Net on 19 Oct 09 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 19 Oct 09
     
    Reportlinker.com announces that a new market research report is available in its catalogue. Nuclear Energy Report, ed.2, 2009 http://www.reportlinker.com/p0109389/Nuclear-Energy-Report-ed2-2009.html Nuclear power is on an ascendant path, after years of stagnation. The environmental fight against fossil fuels is heating up. As informed people start to ask questions about what renewables will be able to achieve, nuclear power is re-entering the picture. The report looks at the global nuclear energy market, past, present and future. It also looks at the countries now considering Nuclear Power, including those considering it for the first time and several countries which are reinstating its use. This report provides country profiles of nuclear use and future plans, statistics of nuclear energy and power, the nuclear fuel cycle and supply, the safety and environmental issues and the history and economics.The nuclear power utilities and nuclear power manufacturing companies are as listed as are the international associations and organisations. The Nuclear Power Report provides a global overview and comprehensive data.
  • Energy Net on 19 Oct 09
     
    Reportlinker.com announces that a new market research report is available in its catalogue. Nuclear Energy Report, ed.2, 2009 http://www.reportlinker.com/p0109389/Nuclear-Energy-Report-ed2-2009.html Nuclear power is on an ascendant path, after years of stagnation. The environmental fight against fossil fuels is heating up. As informed people start to ask questions about what renewables will be able to achieve, nuclear power is re-entering the picture. The report looks at the global nuclear energy market, past, present and future. It also looks at the countries now considering Nuclear Power, including those considering it for the first time and several countries which are reinstating its use. This report provides country profiles of nuclear use and future plans, statistics of nuclear energy and power, the nuclear fuel cycle and supply, the safety and environmental issues and the history and economics.The nuclear power utilities and nuclear power manufacturing companies are as listed as are the international associations and organisations. The Nuclear Power Report provides a global overview and comprehensive data.
Energy Net

Living with nuclear power: public views not as simple as we thought on Environmental Ex... - 0 views

www.environmental-expert.com/resultEachPressRelease.aspx

nuclear energy study poll uk policy europe nuke.news nuke.news.int

shared by Energy Net on 19 Oct 09 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 19 Oct 09
     
    A UK study provides the first contemporary investigation of public perceptions of nuclear power among residents living close to existing nuclear plants. It indicates that responses are not simply 'for' or 'against', but a complex 'landscape of beliefs' that will need complex communication from authorities about plans for new plants. Climate change and energy supply concerns have put nuclear power back on the policy agenda. For example, recent UK government policy proposes that new nuclear power stations should form part of the future UK energy mix(1). As in other countries, many of the candidate sites are those that have existing nuclear facilities. The study examined local response to nuclear power in two UK locations near power stations: Oldbury and Bradwell-on-Sea. It used a technique where participants sorted statements on nuclear power according to how the statements reflect their point of view. The analysis indicated that there are four different 'points of view': * Beneficial and safe. A belief that nuclear power brings both local and global benefits and the power station workers are trustworthy. * Threat and distrust. Nuclear power is unsafe and the government and the nuclear industry are not trustworthy. * Reluctant acceptance. Nuclear power is 'the best of a bad lot'. * There's no point worrying. An indifference to nuclear power and a belief that it is out of our control * These four unique points of view were found at both locations, indicating the results are likely to be reflected in other communities, at least in the UK. Most participants in the study held the first two views.
  • Energy Net on 19 Oct 09
     
    A UK study provides the first contemporary investigation of public perceptions of nuclear power among residents living close to existing nuclear plants. It indicates that responses are not simply 'for' or 'against', but a complex 'landscape of beliefs' that will need complex communication from authorities about plans for new plants. Climate change and energy supply concerns have put nuclear power back on the policy agenda. For example, recent UK government policy proposes that new nuclear power stations should form part of the future UK energy mix(1). As in other countries, many of the candidate sites are those that have existing nuclear facilities. The study examined local response to nuclear power in two UK locations near power stations: Oldbury and Bradwell-on-Sea. It used a technique where participants sorted statements on nuclear power according to how the statements reflect their point of view. The analysis indicated that there are four different 'points of view': * Beneficial and safe. A belief that nuclear power brings both local and global benefits and the power station workers are trustworthy. * Threat and distrust. Nuclear power is unsafe and the government and the nuclear industry are not trustworthy. * Reluctant acceptance. Nuclear power is 'the best of a bad lot'. * There's no point worrying. An indifference to nuclear power and a belief that it is out of our control * These four unique points of view were found at both locations, indicating the results are likely to be reflected in other communities, at least in the UK. Most participants in the study held the first two views.
Energy Net

CAUSE - PART 5 of 6: The pros and cons of nuclear energy - 0 views

www.examiner.com/ros-and-cons-of-nuclear-energy

nuclear energy policy canada s4 nuke.news nuke.news.int

shared by Energy Net on 21 Dec 09 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 21 Dec 09
     
    Some claim that nuclear energy has become safer and that the public is more accepting of it because it releases less emissions into the air compared to coal. As for the benefits of nuclear energy, Schacherl has strong views on this too. "Nuclear energy has no benefits to the public, not even in lower CO2 emissions when the full nuclear cycle is taken into effect. Nuclear is expensive and dangerous, and the only benefit is to the nuclear industry itself. The claim that the third generation reactors are safer is just a joke, since none of them have ever been built and for the ACR1000, not even the design is completed. How can you claim they are safer when the safety analysis showing the probability of a nuclear accident has not even been completed?" Schacherl is emphatic that nuclear energy be phased out and replaced by renewable energy that is safer, more cost-effective and sustainable. Schacherl also encourages the public to do their homework since there is a lot of misinformation out there. "The provincial government's nuclear panel report was full of misinformation. Albertans should do their own research on nuclear. The nuclear industry provides very little solid, factual information. They just ask us to trust them."
  • Energy Net on 21 Dec 09
     
    Some claim that nuclear energy has become safer and that the public is more accepting of it because it releases less emissions into the air compared to coal. As for the benefits of nuclear energy, Schacherl has strong views on this too. "Nuclear energy has no benefits to the public, not even in lower CO2 emissions when the full nuclear cycle is taken into effect. Nuclear is expensive and dangerous, and the only benefit is to the nuclear industry itself. The claim that the third generation reactors are safer is just a joke, since none of them have ever been built and for the ACR1000, not even the design is completed. How can you claim they are safer when the safety analysis showing the probability of a nuclear accident has not even been completed?" Schacherl is emphatic that nuclear energy be phased out and replaced by renewable energy that is safer, more cost-effective and sustainable. Schacherl also encourages the public to do their homework since there is a lot of misinformation out there. "The provincial government's nuclear panel report was full of misinformation. Albertans should do their own research on nuclear. The nuclear industry provides very little solid, factual information. They just ask us to trust them."
Energy Net

The Sunflower - eNewsletter of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation - Issue 156 - July 2010 - 0 views

www.wagingpeace.org/sunflower.php

nuke.news n-weapons newsletter

shared by Energy Net on 06 Jul 10 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 06 Jul 10
     
    "Issue #156 - July 2010 The Sunflower is a monthly e-newsletter providing educational information on nuclear weapons abolition and other issues relating to global security. Help us spread the word and forward this to a friend. Visit www.wagingpeace.org/donate to help sustain this valuable resource by making a donation. To receive our free monthly e-newsletter subscribe at www.wagingpeace.org/subscribe * Perspectives o British Petroleum, Imagination and Nuclear Catastrophe by David Krieger o Nuclear Deterrence Scam Blocking Progress to a Safer World by Commander Robert Green * US Nuclear Weapons Policy o US and Japan Reaffirm Nuclear Pact * Nuclear Disarmament o US Conference of Mayors Calls for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons * Nuclear Proliferation o China Bends International Rules to Sell Reactors to Pakistan o Myanmar May Have a Nuclear Program * Nuclear Labs o Plans for New Kansas City Nuclear Plant Move Forward * Nuclear Testing o US Tests Nuclear-Capable Missiles o Russia to Strengthen Nuclear Testing Capabilities * Nuclear Energy and Waste o Australian Union Bans Nuclear Work o Nature Preserve on Uranium Enrichment Site * War and Peace o Israel Stations Nuclear Subs Near Iran * Iraq War o US Opposes Effort to Include Aggression as a Crime * Resources o ICAN Report on the NPT Review Conference o 2010 Global Peace Index * Foundation Activities o Waging Peace Today: New NAPF Blog o Sadako Peace Day Commemoration: August 6 o NAPF Internship Program"
Energy Net

Nuclear power, strike 1 | MNN - Mother Nature Network - 0 views

www.mnn.com/...nuclear-power-strike-1

nuclear energy report s5 nuke.news

shared by Energy Net on 22 Feb 10 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 22 Feb 10
     
    "Two recent nuclear leaks expose the danger of overhyping a technology that is still not ready for prime time. There has been a recent bout of positive press for the hurting nuclear energy industry, with props given by the likes of Barack Obama and Bill Gates, causing some to call it a nuclear "comeback." And while I agree with both our president and our most famous billionaire that nuclear will at some point it the future be a big part of the solution, a spate of recent events has drawn attention to the fact that though it helps on the carbon front, nuclear power is still very dangerous business. Last year the Chalk River power plant in Ottowa sprung two leaks, spewing 7,000 liters of radioactive water per day into the Ottowa River and this month a similar mysterious leak at the Yankee Vermont plant is resulting in dangerous tritium contamination of the nearby Connecticut River. A full 25 percent of the 104 nuclear reactors in the U.S. have leaked tritium, a known carcinogen. Yes, these are old plants but they call attention to the fact when nuclear goes wrong it can go very wrong. Though there are some newer, safer next-generation nuclear technologies available, they are prohibitively expensive to bring online and still require highly radioactive fuel stocks. There are many exciting developments in nuclear R & D (see my visit to LANL) which make use of downgraded nuclear fuels, but they are in the early stages of development, and that means we're not likely to see them popping up in the landscape anytime in the near future. * Nuclear, Strike 1: TOXIC WASTE * Nuclear, Strike 2: EXCESSIVE COST * Nuclear, Strike 3: WATER DEMAND * The 6 myths of nuclear energy exposed"
Energy Net

Apology To The Earth For Nuclear Bombs And War - 0 views

www.countercurrents.org/hamer040110.htm

nuclear n-weapons history safety n-waste policy nuke.news radiation hiroshima

shared by Energy Net on 11 Jan 10 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 11 Jan 10
     
    PURPOSE: This Apology to the Earth essay Part III explores the negative impact of humans on the Earth by Nuclear Technology & War. Apology to the Earth Parts 1 & 2 focused on Human Cruelty to Animals & Humans, respectively. (1) (2) The key sections of the Part III Nuclear Technology discussion are: Nuclear Bombs, Hiroshima & Nagasaki , Nuclear Power, Nuclear Waste, Radiocide, Nuclear Waste Marker Systems, Nuclear Accidents, Radiation Sickness, Nuclear Bomb Testing & Earthquakes & Nuclear Language.
  • Energy Net on 11 Jan 10
     
    PURPOSE: This Apology to the Earth essay Part III explores the negative impact of humans on the Earth by Nuclear Technology & War. Apology to the Earth Parts 1 & 2 focused on Human Cruelty to Animals & Humans, respectively. (1) (2) The key sections of the Part III Nuclear Technology discussion are: Nuclear Bombs, Hiroshima & Nagasaki , Nuclear Power, Nuclear Waste, Radiocide, Nuclear Waste Marker Systems, Nuclear Accidents, Radiation Sickness, Nuclear Bomb Testing & Earthquakes & Nuclear Language.
Energy Net

BusinessDay - Nuclear energy costs - 0 views

www.businessday.co.za/...Content.aspx

nuke.comments sa africa pbmr economics

shared by Energy Net on 07 Dec 09 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 07 Dec 09
     
    In his letter (Expensive questions, December 1), Mike Deats questions the nuclear Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) but suggests SA should go ahead with nuclear power as soon as possible to mitigate climate change even without the PBMR technology. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency , which exists to spread the peaceful use of the atom, revealed in a report a few years ago that power generation through nuclear fission could not grow fast enough over the next decades to slow climate change - even under the most favourable circumstances. The cost of developing nuclear energy is rising exponentially. In the US uranium now costs 60 for 450g, compared with 10 for 450g nine years ago. There is still no safe repository for nuclear waste anywhere in the world, and Yucca Mountain where the US hopes to store its nuclear waste had an estimated cost of 58bn in 2001, which has now escalated to an estimated 96bn. Last year there were 250 incidents of nuclear material being lost or stolen. In the worst-case scenario of a Chernobyl-type accident, the costs could be as high as 700bn, roughly the size of the current US fiscal bail-out.
  • Energy Net on 07 Dec 09
     
    In his letter (Expensive questions, December 1), Mike Deats questions the nuclear Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) but suggests SA should go ahead with nuclear power as soon as possible to mitigate climate change even without the PBMR technology. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency , which exists to spread the peaceful use of the atom, revealed in a report a few years ago that power generation through nuclear fission could not grow fast enough over the next decades to slow climate change - even under the most favourable circumstances. The cost of developing nuclear energy is rising exponentially. In the US uranium now costs 60 for 450g, compared with 10 for 450g nine years ago. There is still no safe repository for nuclear waste anywhere in the world, and Yucca Mountain where the US hopes to store its nuclear waste had an estimated cost of 58bn in 2001, which has now escalated to an estimated 96bn. Last year there were 250 incidents of nuclear material being lost or stolen. In the worst-case scenario of a Chernobyl-type accident, the costs could be as high as 700bn, roughly the size of the current US fiscal bail-out.
  • Energy Net on 07 Dec 09
     
    In his letter (Expensive questions, December 1), Mike Deats questions the nuclear Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) but suggests SA should go ahead with nuclear power as soon as possible to mitigate climate change even without the PBMR technology. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency , which exists to spread the peaceful use of the atom, revealed in a report a few years ago that power generation through nuclear fission could not grow fast enough over the next decades to slow climate change - even under the most favourable circumstances. The cost of developing nuclear energy is rising exponentially. In the US uranium now costs 60 for 450g, compared with 10 for 450g nine years ago. There is still no safe repository for nuclear waste anywhere in the world, and Yucca Mountain where the US hopes to store its nuclear waste had an estimated cost of 58bn in 2001, which has now escalated to an estimated 96bn. Last year there were 250 incidents of nuclear material being lost or stolen. In the worst-case scenario of a Chernobyl-type accident, the costs could be as high as 700bn, roughly the size of the current US fiscal bail-out.
Energy Net

U.S. firm sheds liability for Canadian nuclear peril - The Globe and Mail - 0 views

www.theglobeandmail.com/...article1381240

nuclear energy canada nuke.news nuke.news.int

shared by Energy Net on 30 Nov 09 - Cached
  • Nuclear plant supplier GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy shielding finances from the risks of an accident at a Canadian nuclear station Share with friends Close Email Please enter a valid e-mail address Please enter a comma delimited list of valid e-mail addresses Other ways of sharing: Tweet this on Twitter Share on Facebook Add to Delicious Submit post to Digg.com Seed this post at Newsvine Print or License Close Print this page License this story Recommend | 11 Times   Article   Comments (29)   $(document).ready(function(){ art.dividers = $('#article-tabs li.divider'); art.allCommentsRetrieved = false; art.type = "news"; art.tinyFlash = ""; if (location.hash) { $('#article-tabs li a').each(function(i) { if (this.href.split('#')[1] == location.hash.split('#')[1]) { art.defaultSelected = i; art.tabContext = this.href.split('#')[1]; art.intialTabContext = art.tabContext; } }); if (art.intialTabContext == "video") { $('#article-rail .boxr').each(function(i,box) { box.id == "coAd" ? $(box).show() : $(box).hide(); }); } } else { if (art.type == 'picturecollection') { art.tabContext = 'photos'; } else if (art.type == 'flash') { art.tabContext = 'interactive'; } else if (art.type == 'videotabbed') { art.tabContext = 'video'; } else { art.tabContext = 'article'; } art.defaultSelected = 0; } art.isInitialWideStateRequest = function(content) { return ((content == 'photos' || (content == 'interactive' && art.tinyFlash != "true")) && (art.intialTabContext != 'undefined' && art.intialTabContext != null)); } art.initiateWideTabRequest = function(content, height) { height = height + 35; var wideName = content + '-ctr'; $('#'+wideName).addClass('selected').css({paddingTop: height+'px'}); $('#article-rail').css({paddingTop: height+20+'px'}); $('#article-relations').css({paddingTop: height+'px'}); art.intialTabContext = null; } art.controlComments = function(content) { // This is needed so the comments do NOT display twice on the comments tab if(content=='comments') { globalPluckLocation = "comments"; if (!art.allCommentsRetrieved) { globe.pluck.getComments(1,null, globalPluckOrder); art.allCommentsRetrieved = true; } $('#latest-comments').hide(); } else { globalPluckLocation = content; $('#latest-comments').show(); } } art.tabbify = function() { var selected = $('#article-tabs li.ui-tabs-selected')[0]; $(art.dividers).removeClass("right-selected").removeClass("left-selected"); $(selected).prev().addClass("left-selected"); $(selected).next().addClass("right-selected"); } art.growTabs = function(content) { $('.wide-container').removeClass('selected').css({paddingTop: 0}); var contentHeight = $('#'+content).height(); var padding = contentHeight+35; var widePdgTop = padding + 'px'; var wideName = content + '-ctr'; if (content == "interactive" && art.tinyFlash == "true") { return; } else { $('#'+wideName).addClass('selected').css({paddingTop: widePdgTop}); $('#article-relations').css({paddingTop: widePdgTop}); $('#article-rail').css({paddingTop: padding+20+'px'}); } } art.getGalleryImages = function(collectionId) { if (!art.galleryImages) { art.galleryImages = new Array(); var gimg = $("#gallery-image"); var url = "http://www.theglobeandmail.com/template/ver1-0/ajax/pictureCollectionImages.jsp"; var params = { articleId: collectionId, start: 0, version: 'gm-f' //cacheTime: '15m' }; $.ajax({ type: 'GET', url: url, data: params, dataType: 'json', success: function(json) { $.each(json.images, function(i, image) { art.galleryImages.push(image); art.galleryImages[i][0] = new Image(); art.galleryImages[i][0].src = image.src; }); // end each setTimeout(function() { $('#photo-meta p.caption', gimg).text(art.galleryImages[0].caption); $('#photo-meta p.credit em', gimg).text(art.galleryImages[0].credit); $('#photo-count', gimg).text('1 of '+art.galleryImages.length); $('img', gimg).attr({ src: art.galleryImages[0][0].src, alt: art.galleryImages[0].alt, width: art.galleryImages[0].width, height: art.galleryImages[0].height }); $('#galleryLoading', gimg).fadeOut(200, function() { $(this).remove(); $(gimg).removeClass('loading').addClass('gimg-0'); $('#gallery-controls').fadeIn(1000); $('#photo-meta',gimg).fadeIn(1000); $('img',gimg).fadeIn(1000); }); }, 200); }, error: function(XMLHttpRequest, textStatus, errorThrown) { $('#galleryLoading') .css({'background-image': 'none', 'width': '60%', 'text-align': 'left'}) .html("This gallery's images aren't loading properly. We're looking into it.Sorry for the inconvenience."); console.log('Gallery error status: '+textStatus+ ' Error thrown: '+errorThrown); } }); } } art.showTab = function(event, ui, content, wideTab) { var content = ui.tab.hash.split('#')[1]; // ie. photos, article, comments, interactive art.controlComments(content); if (art.type == "flash" && art.tinyFlash == "true") { return; } var contentHeight = $('#'+content).height(); if (art.type == 'picturecollection') { contentHeight+=45; } else { contentHeight+=35; } if ($.browser.msie && $.browser.version=='6.0' && (art.type=='picturecollection' || art.type=='flash')) { var fixIE6 = true; } if (content == wideTab) { $('.wide-container').addClass('selected'); if (fixIE6) { $('#article-content').css({overflow: 'visible'}); } else { $('#article-rail').css({paddingTop: contentHeight+'px'}); } $('#article-relations .relation:first').css({borderTopColor: '#fff'}); } else { if (fixIE6) { $('#article-content').css({overflow: 'hidden'}); } $('.wide-container').removeClass('selected'); $('#article-relations .relation:first').css({borderTopColor: ''}); } if (art.type == 'picturecollection') { art.getGalleryImages(1381240); } } art.resetWideTabs = function(removePadding) { if (removePadding) { $('#article-content .wide-container').removeClass('selected').css({paddingTop: 0}); $('#article-content #article-relations').css({paddingTop: 0}); } else { $('#article-content .wide-container').removeClass('selected'); } // since the container has had it's position reset to static (rather than absolute // when related to a news article, there's no need to remove padding on #article-relations) $('#article-rail').css({paddingTop: 0}); } art.registerOmniTab = function(tab) { // omniture if (art.tabContext == tab) { return; } art.tabContext = tab; var hierarchy = s.hier1.split(':'); hierarchy.pop(); hierarchy.push(tab); var newHierarchy = ''; $.each(hierarchy, function(i,val) { if (i!=0) { newHierarchy
  • Energy Net on 30 Nov 09
     
    Nuclear plant supplier GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy shielding finances from the risks of an accident at a Canadian nuclear station One of the world's largest nuclear plant suppliers has ordered its Canadian division to hermetically seal itself off from its U.S. parent, going so far as to forbid engineers at the U.S. wing from having anything to do with Canadian reactors. The move by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy is spurred by concerns about liability - if an accident at a Canadian plant spreads damage across the border, Americans might be able to sue the parent company. The result is a Canadian company cut off from the technical advances of its parent, a leading player in the industry. The company also won't allow any equipment built or designed by the U.S. parent to be used in Canadian reactors for the same reason.
  • Energy Net on 30 Nov 09
     
    Nuclear plant supplier GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy shielding finances from the risks of an accident at a Canadian nuclear station One of the world's largest nuclear plant suppliers has ordered its Canadian division to hermetically seal itself off from its U.S. parent, going so far as to forbid engineers at the U.S. wing from having anything to do with Canadian reactors. The move by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy is spurred by concerns about liability - if an accident at a Canadian plant spreads damage across the border, Americans might be able to sue the parent company. The result is a Canadian company cut off from the technical advances of its parent, a leading player in the industry. The company also won't allow any equipment built or designed by the U.S. parent to be used in Canadian reactors for the same reason.
Energy Net

Critics say recycling spent fuel creates more problems - Brattleboro Reformer - 0 views

www.reformer.com/...ci_13510702

nuclear energy reprocessing spent-fuel n-waste nuke.news

shared by Energy Net on 12 Oct 09 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 12 Oct 09
     
    This is the last story in a three-part series related to the problems of spent fuel produced by the nation's nuclear power plants. BRATTLEBORO -- Is the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel the answer to the nation's nuclear waste storage woes? The nuclear industry contends reprocessing, or recycling as some in the industry call it, could reduce the amount of spent fuel that will one day need to be stored away and isolated from the environment for hundreds of thousands of years. The nuclear industry doesn't consider spent fuel a waste product, said Thomas Kauffman, senior media relations manager for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry funded organization that promotes nuclear power around the world. "It can be recycled through reprocessing," he said. "It's an energy-rich resource that needs to be stored until the government decides how it wants to handle it." The NEI believes programs currently operating in countries such as Japan, France, Germany and Russia can serve as examples for the United States. The NEI also contends that new technology, including the development of breeder reactors that can consume spent fuel, might make spent fuel storage a thing of the past. And while it is true that strides have been made in the field of nuclear fuel reprocessing, it has a checkered history that includes contamination of land, pollution of water and huge clean-up costs. "Reprocessing would be a serious mistake with costs and risks that outweigh the benefits," said Jim Riccio, Greenpeace's nuclear policy analyst.
  • Energy Net on 12 Oct 09
     
    This is the last story in a three-part series related to the problems of spent fuel produced by the nation's nuclear power plants. BRATTLEBORO -- Is the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel the answer to the nation's nuclear waste storage woes? The nuclear industry contends reprocessing, or recycling as some in the industry call it, could reduce the amount of spent fuel that will one day need to be stored away and isolated from the environment for hundreds of thousands of years. The nuclear industry doesn't consider spent fuel a waste product, said Thomas Kauffman, senior media relations manager for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry funded organization that promotes nuclear power around the world. "It can be recycled through reprocessing," he said. "It's an energy-rich resource that needs to be stored until the government decides how it wants to handle it." The NEI believes programs currently operating in countries such as Japan, France, Germany and Russia can serve as examples for the United States. The NEI also contends that new technology, including the development of breeder reactors that can consume spent fuel, might make spent fuel storage a thing of the past. And while it is true that strides have been made in the field of nuclear fuel reprocessing, it has a checkered history that includes contamination of land, pollution of water and huge clean-up costs. "Reprocessing would be a serious mistake with costs and risks that outweigh the benefits," said Jim Riccio, Greenpeace's nuclear policy analyst.
Energy Net

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: Reprocessing: A Rapid Response Factsheet - 0 views

www.armscontrolcenter.org/...ing_a_rapid_response_factsheet

energy n-weapons nei nuclear nuke.news pr proliferation us

shared by Energy Net on 06 Sep 08 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 06 Sep 08
     
    On August 25, 2008, the Nuclear Energy Institute released a fact sheet for press at the Democratic National Convention claiming that "Nuclear power plants and the proliferation of nuclear weapons are not linked." This statement assumes that sensitive nuclear technologies will not spread. However, the Bush administration's current proposal to resume reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership has increased the risk that nuclear energy will result in more nuclear weapons-usable material in the United States and abroad. The Bush Administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) proposes that the United States would separate plutonium from spent nuclear fuel through reprocessing. GNEP envisions that "receiver" countries would voluntarily give up nuclear enrichment and reprocessing technologies and, in exchange, and would send their nuclear waste to "supplier" countries for reprocessing. In practice, GNEP is a proliferation risk, exorbitantly expensive, and not a solution to the growing nuclear waste problem in the United States
Energy Net

Nuclear power plants get little state support | NewsOK.com - 0 views

newsok.com/...3442309

nuclear energy policy reactors ok nuke.news

shared by Energy Net on 01 Mar 10 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 01 Mar 10
     
    "Nuclear power accounted for nearly 20 percent of the electricity generated in the United States in 2008. Oklahoman graphics illustration Multimedia Photoview all photos More Info By the numbers Nuclear power statistics * 19.6: Percentage of U.S. electric generation derived from nuclear reactors in 2008 * 14: Percentage of electricity generated by nuclear power worldwide in 2008 * 31: States with operational nuclear reactors * 6: States that derive the largest percentage of their electricity from nuclear power * 104: Number of operational nuclear reactors in the U.S. * 1982: Year Public Service Co. of Oklahoma canceled plans to build a nuclear plant near Inola Source: Nuclear Energy Institute, Oklahoman archives Advocates such as the Nuclear Energy Institute claim it is the country's "largest source of clean-air, carbon-free electricity, producing no greenhouse gases or air pollutants." Nuclear also has the lowest operations and maintenance costs of any fuel source, NEI spokesman Mitch Singer said. But none of that matters to Oklahoma's two largest power companies. "We have no plans to build or explore a nuclear option," Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. spokesman Brian Alford said. "It's cost prohibitive for utilities of our size.""
Energy Net

Reading Up on Nuclear Energy - WSJ.com - 0 views

online.wsj.com/...SB122653266237122449.html

nuclear energy resources nuike.news

shared by Energy Net on 18 Nov 08 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 18 Nov 08
     
    PETER A. BRADFORD, adjunct professor, Vermont Law School, and former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: * For an even-handed recent overview of most nuclear power issues, see "Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding," a June 2007 report by the Keystone Center, a non-profit organization that brought together a cross section of parties interested in nuclear energy - including environmentalists and consumer advocates, industry representatives and government officials - to create a base of agreed-upon knowledge about the costs, risks and benefits of nuclear power. www.keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReport_NJFF6_12_2007(1).pdf * For a responsibly skeptical look at nuclear power's rapidly rising costs in comparison to available low carbon alternatives, see "The Nuclear Illusion" by Amory Lovins and Imram Sheikh in the November 2008 Ambio, the Journal of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNuclIlusion.pdf The Journal Report * See the complete Energy report. * The Web site of the Nonproliferation Education Center, maintained by WSJ op-ed contributor Henry Sokolski, features an ongoing collection of thoughtful conservative pieces skeptical of nuclear power. http://www.npec-web.org/ * For an excellent short critique of reprocessing and the Bush Administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, see Victor Gilinsky and Alison Macfarlane's Minority Opinion from the National Academy of Science's Review of DoE's Nuclear Research and Development Program, http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11998&page=73 * For an even-handed look at how nuclear construction went astray in the U.S. in the 1970s, the best book remains "Light Water: How the Nuclear Dream Dissolved, Irvin C. Bupp and Jean-Claude Derian. * Another good overview text is Megawatts and Megatons, Richard Garwin and Georges Charpak.
Energy Net

Nuclear power to the rescue? A measured look - OhMyGov! - General News - 0 views

ohmygov.com/...nuke-power.aspx

nuclear energy policy safety economics nuke.news

shared by Energy Net on 04 Jul 09 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 04 Jul 09
     
    Nuclear energy has always had something of a bad reputation-a volatile, barely containable force that nobody wants in their neighborhood. But with the planet heating up, the economy floundering, and the world economy striving for safer energy alternatives, it's time to ask: does nuclear power really deserve its negative stigma, and does it hold promise as a renewable alternative to fossil fuels? Nuclear Plant Safety Safety has always been a concern regarding nuclear plants, and one of the primary factors motivating people to keep nuclear plants away from their homes. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are two of the first things that come to mind when many consider hosting a nuclear power plant, and neither are particularly cheering images. When compared to other power plants, however, nuclear energy is actually one of the safest options. According to a study by the Paul Scherrer Institute, there have been only seven major nuclear accidents ever, accounting for approximately 64 deaths and 220 latent fatalities.
  • Energy Net on 04 Jul 09
     
    Nuclear energy has always had something of a bad reputation-a volatile, barely containable force that nobody wants in their neighborhood. But with the planet heating up, the economy floundering, and the world economy striving for safer energy alternatives, it's time to ask: does nuclear power really deserve its negative stigma, and does it hold promise as a renewable alternative to fossil fuels? Nuclear Plant Safety Safety has always been a concern regarding nuclear plants, and one of the primary factors motivating people to keep nuclear plants away from their homes. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are two of the first things that come to mind when many consider hosting a nuclear power plant, and neither are particularly cheering images. When compared to other power plants, however, nuclear energy is actually one of the safest options. According to a study by the Paul Scherrer Institute, there have been only seven major nuclear accidents ever, accounting for approximately 64 deaths and 220 latent fatalities.
Energy Net

NRC - NRC Approves License Transfers for Constellation/EDF Nuclear Joint Venture - 0 views

www.nrc.gov/...09-171.html

nuclear energy reactors license nrc constellation edf md ny calvertcliffs nine-mile-point nuke.news

shared by Energy Net on 19 Oct 09 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 19 Oct 09
     
    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has approved the transfer of the operating licenses for the Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2, Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2, and Ginna nuclear reactors, as well as the license for the Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), to a new ownership structure created by the joint venture of Constellation Energy Nuclear Group (CENG) and EDF Development, a U.S. subsidiary of Électricité de France S.A., a French limited company. As provided by NRC regulations, the staff's approval of the transfer is effective October 9. CENG and EDF Development submitted an application Jan. 22 requesting approval of the license transfer, and the companies provided supplemental information Feb. 26, April 8, June 25 and July 27. Following EDF Development's proposed purchase of 49.99 percent of CENG, Constellation Energy Group (CEG) would hold the remaining 50.01 percent through two intermediate companies, Constellation Nuclear and CE Nuclear. The current Constellation Nuclear Power Plants corporation would become an LLC and exist between CENG and the individual power plants.
  • Energy Net on 19 Oct 09
     
    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has approved the transfer of the operating licenses for the Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2, Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2, and Ginna nuclear reactors, as well as the license for the Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), to a new ownership structure created by the joint venture of Constellation Energy Nuclear Group (CENG) and EDF Development, a U.S. subsidiary of Électricité de France S.A., a French limited company. As provided by NRC regulations, the staff's approval of the transfer is effective October 9. CENG and EDF Development submitted an application Jan. 22 requesting approval of the license transfer, and the companies provided supplemental information Feb. 26, April 8, June 25 and July 27. Following EDF Development's proposed purchase of 49.99 percent of CENG, Constellation Energy Group (CEG) would hold the remaining 50.01 percent through two intermediate companies, Constellation Nuclear and CE Nuclear. The current Constellation Nuclear Power Plants corporation would become an LLC and exist between CENG and the individual power plants.
  • Energy Net on 19 Oct 09
     
    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has approved the transfer of the operating licenses for the Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2, Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2, and Ginna nuclear reactors, as well as the license for the Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), to a new ownership structure created by the joint venture of Constellation Energy Nuclear Group (CENG) and EDF Development, a U.S. subsidiary of Électricité de France S.A., a French limited company. As provided by NRC regulations, the staff's approval of the transfer is effective October 9. CENG and EDF Development submitted an application Jan. 22 requesting approval of the license transfer, and the companies provided supplemental information Feb. 26, April 8, June 25 and July 27. Following EDF Development's proposed purchase of 49.99 percent of CENG, Constellation Energy Group (CEG) would hold the remaining 50.01 percent through two intermediate companies, Constellation Nuclear and CE Nuclear. The current Constellation Nuclear Power Plants corporation would become an LLC and exist between CENG and the individual power plants.
Energy Net

NorthumberlandView.ca - CNSC Hearing Reveals Cracks In Radioactive Waste "Plan" - 0 views

www.northumberlandview.ca/modules.php

nuclear energy fuel-cycle n-waste cleanup canada nuke.news nuke.news.int

shared by Energy Net on 18 Sep 09 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 18 Sep 09
     
    Question: When is a plan not a plan? Answer: When it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's "cleanup" proposal for the town of Port Hope, Ontario. At a packed hearing last week, Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, listened to presentations on the proposal from its staff, AECL, private citizens, and volunteer organizations - roughly 100 presentations in all, spanning 17 hours of hearing time. AECL is asking for a licence for a low level radioactive waste site. The site will house approximately 1.5 million cubic metres of nuclear and industrial waste, collected from the community over the course of the next decade. The proposal was approved in 2007, following a six-year environmental assessment. The ensuing licensing process should have been fairly straight forward - hash out a few technical details and get shovels in the ground.
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Energy Net on 18 Sep 09
     
    Question: When is a plan not a plan? Answer: When it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's "cleanup" proposal for the town of Port Hope, Ontario. At a packed hearing last week, Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, listened to presentations on the proposal from its staff, AECL, private citizens, and volunteer organizations - roughly 100 presentations in all, spanning 17 hours of hearing time. AECL is asking for a licence for a low level radioactive waste site. The site will house approximately 1.5 million cubic metres of nuclear and industrial waste, collected from the community over the course of the next decade. The proposal was approved in 2007, following a six-year environmental assessment. The ensuing licensing process should have been fairly straight forward - hash out a few technical details and get shovels in the ground.
  • Energy Net on 18 Sep 09
     
    Question: When is a plan not a plan? Answer: When it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's "cleanup" proposal for the town of Port Hope, Ontario. At a packed hearing last week, Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, listened to presentations on the proposal from its staff, AECL, private citizens, and volunteer organizations - roughly 100 presentations in all, spanning 17 hours of hearing time. AECL is asking for a licence for a low level radioactive waste site. The site will house approximately 1.5 million cubic metres of nuclear and industrial waste, collected from the community over the course of the next decade. The proposal was approved in 2007, following a six-year environmental assessment. The ensuing licensing process should have been fairly straight forward - hash out a few technical details and get shovels in the ground.
  • Energy Net on 18 Sep 09
     
    Question: When is a plan not a plan? Answer: When it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's "cleanup" proposal for the town of Port Hope, Ontario. At a packed hearing last week, Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, listened to presentations on the proposal from its staff, AECL, private citizens, and volunteer organizations - roughly 100 presentations in all, spanning 17 hours of hearing time. AECL is asking for a licence for a low level radioactive waste site. The site will house approximately 1.5 million cubic metres of nuclear and industrial waste, collected from the community over the course of the next decade. The proposal was approved in 2007, following a six-year environmental assessment. The ensuing licensing process should have been fairly straight forward - hash out a few technical details and get shovels in the ground.
  • Energy Net on 18 Sep 09
     
    Question: When is a plan not a plan? Answer: When it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's "cleanup" proposal for the town of Port Hope, Ontario. At a packed hearing last week, Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, listened to presentations on the proposal from its staff, AECL, private citizens, and volunteer organizations - roughly 100 presentations in all, spanning 17 hours of hearing time. AECL is asking for a licence for a low level radioactive waste site. The site will house approximately 1.5 million cubic metres of nuclear and industrial waste, collected from the community over the course of the next decade. The proposal was approved in 2007, following a six-year environmental assessment. The ensuing licensing process should have been fairly straight forward - hash out a few technical details and get shovels in the ground.
  • Energy Net on 18 Sep 09
     
    Question: When is a plan not a plan? Answer: When it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's "cleanup" proposal for the town of Port Hope, Ontario. At a packed hearing last week, Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, listened to presentations on the proposal from its staff, AECL, private citizens, and volunteer organizations - roughly 100 presentations in all, spanning 17 hours of hearing time. AECL is asking for a licence for a low level radioactive waste site. The site will house approximately 1.5 million cubic metres of nuclear and industrial waste, collected from the community over the course of the next decade. The proposal was approved in 2007, following a six-year environmental assessment. The ensuing licensing process should have been fairly straight forward - hash out a few technical details and get shovels in the ground.
  • Energy Net on 18 Sep 09
     
    Question: When is a plan not a plan? Answer: When it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's "cleanup" proposal for the town of Port Hope, Ontario. At a packed hearing last week, Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, listened to presentations on the proposal from its staff, AECL, private citizens, and volunteer organizations - roughly 100 presentations in all, spanning 17 hours of hearing time. AECL is asking for a licence for a low level radioactive waste site. The site will house approximately 1.5 million cubic metres of nuclear and industrial waste, collected from the community over the course of the next decade. The proposal was approved in 2007, following a six-year environmental assessment. The ensuing licensing process should have been fairly straight forward - hash out a few technical details and get shovels in the ground.
Energy Net

GERMANY: Nuclear Power Fails, And Nobody Notices - IPS ipsnews.net - 0 views

www.ipsnews.net/news.asp

nuclear energy policy germany europe nuke.news nuke.news.int

shared by Energy Net on 10 Aug 09 - No Cached
  • Energy Net on 10 Aug 09
     
    Seven German nuclear plants have failed to generate any electricity this month due to technical breakdowns. They have about half the production capacity of Germany's 17 nuclear reactors, but Germany did not suffer any power shortages. The plants have between them a 9,000 megawatt (MW) capacity, but Germany generates more electricity than it consumes, and has been exporting some of the surplus to France, which is heavily dependent on nuclear power. Early this month, three plants shut down automatically due to failures in their transformers. The other four have been out of service for months, and are undergoing expensive repairs. The breakdowns come at a time when the planned phasing out of nuclear power is under attack. In 2002, the coalition government of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Greens decided that all nuclear reactors would be phased out by 2021. At the same time, the government launched a massive investment programme in renewable energy, making Germany the leading country in Europe in use of the sun and wind as energy sources. According to official figures, Germany generates 15 percent of the electricity it consumes from renewable sources. A law passed in 2008 sets a target of generating at least 30 percent of electricity through renewables by 2020. Additionally, on Jul. 13, a group of large German companies announced a joint investment of 400 billion euros (560 billion dollars) in setting up solar thermal plants in the Sahara, to generate at least 15 percent of all electricity needed in Europe by the year 2020. But Chancellor Angela Merkel announced Jul. 1 that she would reverse the phasing out of nuclear power if her Christian Democratic Party wins the general election in September, and can form a coalition with the right-wing Liberal Democratic Party. Merkel presently rules in coalition with the SPD. "Nuclear power remains an indispensable component of the German energy mix," Merkel told the annual meeting of Atomforum, a group represe
  • Energy Net on 10 Aug 09
     
    Seven German nuclear plants have failed to generate any electricity this month due to technical breakdowns. They have about half the production capacity of Germany's 17 nuclear reactors, but Germany did not suffer any power shortages. The plants have between them a 9,000 megawatt (MW) capacity, but Germany generates more electricity than it consumes, and has been exporting some of the surplus to France, which is heavily dependent on nuclear power. Early this month, three plants shut down automatically due to failures in their transformers. The other four have been out of service for months, and are undergoing expensive repairs. The breakdowns come at a time when the planned phasing out of nuclear power is under attack. In 2002, the coalition government of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Greens decided that all nuclear reactors would be phased out by 2021. At the same time, the government launched a massive investment programme in renewable energy, making Germany the leading country in Europe in use of the sun and wind as energy sources. According to official figures, Germany generates 15 percent of the electricity it consumes from renewable sources. A law passed in 2008 sets a target of generating at least 30 percent of electricity through renewables by 2020. Additionally, on Jul. 13, a group of large German companies announced a joint investment of 400 billion euros (560 billion dollars) in setting up solar thermal plants in the Sahara, to generate at least 15 percent of all electricity needed in Europe by the year 2020. But Chancellor Angela Merkel announced Jul. 1 that she would reverse the phasing out of nuclear power if her Christian Democratic Party wins the general election in September, and can form a coalition with the right-wing Liberal Democratic Party. Merkel presently rules in coalition with the SPD. "Nuclear power remains an indispensable component of the German energy mix," Merkel told the annual meeting of Atomforum, a group represe
Energy Net

Sparring begins on Magwood nomination at NRC | Frank Munger's Atomic City Underground |... - 0 views

blogs.knoxnews.com/...ing_begins_on_magwood_nom.html

nuclear energy regulatory nrc nuke.news

shared by Energy Net on 19 Oct 09 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 19 Oct 09
     
    Beyond Nuclear issued a press release today stating that it and "close to 100" other anti-nuclear or activist groups opposed to nuclear energy are lining up against the nomination of William Magwood to the NRC. Meanwhile, the Nuclear Energy Institute issued a release saying the industry welcomed the nomination of Magwood and George Apostolakis to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In a statement, Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear said: "We urged President Obama to instead nominate a strong regulator to the NRC Commission who has demonstrated a commitment to public safety, rather than to nuclear power industry promotional and financial interests. Mr. Magwood has a long track record promoting the nuclear industry's interest, including the scientifically-flawed Yucca Mountain dumpsite proposal, canceled by President Obama."
  • Energy Net on 19 Oct 09
     
    Beyond Nuclear issued a press release today stating that it and "close to 100" other anti-nuclear or activist groups opposed to nuclear energy are lining up against the nomination of William Magwood to the NRC. Meanwhile, the Nuclear Energy Institute issued a release saying the industry welcomed the nomination of Magwood and George Apostolakis to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In a statement, Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear said: "We urged President Obama to instead nominate a strong regulator to the NRC Commission who has demonstrated a commitment to public safety, rather than to nuclear power industry promotional and financial interests. Mr. Magwood has a long track record promoting the nuclear industry's interest, including the scientifically-flawed Yucca Mountain dumpsite proposal, canceled by President Obama."
Energy Net

Boos as Obama taps Yucca supporter - Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2009 | 2 a.m. - Las Vegas Sun - 0 views

www.lasvegassun.com/...oos-obama-taps-yucca-supporter

nuclear energy regulatory nrc policy yucca-mountain nuke.news

shared by Energy Net on 26 Oct 09 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 26 Oct 09
     
    Senators urged to reject choice for nuclear commission Anti-nuclear groups are fighting the Obama administration's nomination of a pro-Yucca Mountain nuclear industry insider to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On Oct. 9, President Barack Obama nominated Bill Magwood to the commission, which is charged with regulating and licensing all civilian use of nuclear materials, including the stalled nuclear waste dump proposed for 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Critics of the choice say Magwood has a history of nuclear boosterism that is incompatible with the role of a regulator. He also has repeatedly been quoted as saying Yucca Mountain is the best solution to the nation's nuclear waste storage issues, most recently in May.
  • Energy Net on 26 Oct 09
     
    Senators urged to reject choice for nuclear commission Anti-nuclear groups are fighting the Obama administration's nomination of a pro-Yucca Mountain nuclear industry insider to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On Oct. 9, President Barack Obama nominated Bill Magwood to the commission, which is charged with regulating and licensing all civilian use of nuclear materials, including the stalled nuclear waste dump proposed for 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Critics of the choice say Magwood has a history of nuclear boosterism that is incompatible with the role of a regulator. He also has repeatedly been quoted as saying Yucca Mountain is the best solution to the nation's nuclear waste storage issues, most recently in May.
Energy Net

Is nuclear finally off the table? | MNN - Mother Nature Network - 0 views

www.mnn.com/...-nuclear-finally-off-the-table

nuclear energy policy economics nuke.news

shared by Energy Net on 14 Mar 09 - Cached
  • Energy Net on 14 Mar 09
     
    It's not looking good for the nuclear industry. Last month, the $50 billion earmark for nuclear energy was removed from Obama's stimulus bill. And today Yucca Mountain, the problematic nuclear waste containment facility that was supposed to finally legitimate the viability of nuclear energy, just had its plug pulled by Steven Chu, head of the D.O.E. Chu tried to assure jittery senators in the Senate Budget Committee that "Nuclear is going to be part of our energy future," but many were skeptical. A quiet and growing consensus seems to be emerging among energy experts, cleantech investors and the general public that nuclear just does not seem to add up. When asked about the future of nuclear energy this week at the ECO:nomics summit, Matt C. Rogers stated that nuclear was taken off the table because it didn't meet the key criterion of the stimulus bill -- to get projects underway and create jobs in the next 18 months. That doesn't mean there won't be appropriations for nuclear in the upcoming energy bill, but the focus will likely be on creating "next-gen" nuclear which by some estimates is at least 10 years away from deployment.
1 - 20 of 11800 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page