Group items tagged

RWE Innogy and a consortium will build a solar power plant called Andasol 3 in southern Spain, developed by Solar Millennium AG, the parties said in a statement on Friday Spain pushes ahead with renewables in quest to finish with nuclear power RWE Innogy and a consortium will build a solar power plant called Andasol 3 in southern Spain, developed by Solar Millennium AG, the parties said in a statement on Friday. It said that Stadwerke Munich, MAN Ferrostaal, RheinEnergie and Solar Millennium would form a consortium with RWE Innogy for the unit, which is planned to come on stream in 2011.

The Norwegian-Russian project on replacing radioactive strontium batteries with solar panels in lighthouses along the White Sea and Barents Sea coast and islands is now completed. In 2009 the project might be adopted in the Baltic Sea. All of the Northern Fleet hydrographical service's 153 lighthouses along the White Sea and Barents Sea coast and islands, have now been modernized to use solar energy as power source, Russian TV company TV21 reports. The radioactive strontium batteries that used to supply these lighthouses with energy have been shipped to the Mayak reprocessing plant in Chelyabinsk, Siberia.

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."

Lester R. Brown, one of the world's most widely published authors and referred to by the Washington Post as "one of the world's most influential thinkers", has recently published his views via the Earth Policy Institute on the nuclear vs. wind and solar power debate; stating that nuclear power is uneconomical compared to renewable energy. Quoting from a recent analysis entitled "The Nuclear Illusion", Brown points out the cost of electricity from a new nuclear power plant costs around (USD) 14¢ per kilowatt hour compared to a wind farm's very economical 7¢ per kilowatt hour. The costings take into account capital, general operations and maintenance, transmission and distribution in relation to both options.

Forget the industry hype about a nuclear renaissance. Renewable energy is becoming the leading source of new power capacity. Remarkably, it is likely to overtake nuclear as a source of power in the not too distant future. In 2008, nuclear power capacity experienced zero growth, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Meanwhile, solar power capacity grew 62 per cent, while wind capacity rose 29 per cent. While no new nukes went on line, solar and wind added 5,600 megawatts (MW) of capacity and wind added 27,000 MW, the equivalent of about 32 new 1,000-MW nuclear reactors.

"One way to think about an important choice you're about to make is to ask, "What's the worst thing that could happen?" So let's say you're considering putting up a huge solar panel farm in the middle of Georgia. And I mean really huge, like $8 billion huge. The biggest solar farm ever built. Big. Got it? And what's the worst thing you could imagine that could happen? A cloudy day? Rust? A tornado? A plane crashes into it? Wow. All those things would be pretty bad, no kidding. But for not very much money that gigantic solar farm would be repaired and it would go right back to making cheap power."

"A bill that would have put the legislature in charge of the state's renewable energy standard was pulled Thursday following a blitz by solar industry officials and local governments. House Bill 2701 was killed two days after hearing from several solar companies, including Suntech Power Holdings Co. Ltd., which threatened to abandon plans to locate a factory in Goodyear. The bill was seen as a potential showdown with the Arizona Corporation Commission, which had set standards requiring state utilities get 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources such as solar and wind by 2025. Provisions included the classification of nuclear power as a renewable."

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.

While all the alternative energy buzz is on solar and wind, the U.S. Department of Energy is putting its money into nuclear fusion. Japan, France, the U.K., and China along with the U.S. are experimenting with nuclear fusion. Energy demands worldwide are expected to double in the next thirty years, and solar and wind energy will not be able to meet these demands. Nuclear fusion, dubbed as Laser Inertial Fusion Energy (LIFE) by the scientists doing the work, may be the solution to all our energy problems. The project has a $3.5 billion price tag, funded by tax payer money.

While all the alternative energy buzz is on solar and wind, the U.S. Department of Energy is putting its money into nuclear fusion. Japan, France, the U.K., and China along with the U.S. are experimenting with nuclear fusion. Energy demands worldwide are expected to double in the next thirty years, and solar and wind energy will not be able to meet these demands. Nuclear fusion, dubbed as Laser Inertial Fusion Energy (LIFE) by the scientists doing the work, may be the solution to all our energy problems. The project has a $3.5 billion price tag, funded by tax payer money.

Obama and the Nuclear Rocket The Obama administration is seeking to renew the use of nuclear power in space. It is calling for revived production by the U.S. of plutonium-238 for use in space devices-despite solar energy having become a substitute for plutonium power in space. And the Obama administration appears to also want to revive the decades-old and long-discredited scheme of nuclear-powered rockets-despite strides made in new ways of propelling spacecraft. Last month, Japan launched what it called its "space yacht" which is now heading to Venus propelled by solar sails utilizing ionized particles emitted by the Sun. "Because of the frictionless environment, such a craft should be able to speed up until it is traveling many times faster than a conventional rocket-powered craft," wrote Agence France-Presse about this spacecraft launched May 21. But the Obama administration would return to using nuclear power in space-despite its enormous dangers.

Energy Future Holdings (EFH) determination to build two nuclear generating plants near Glen Rose shows its corporate inability to change its long-term strategy in spite of overwhelming odds against success. (See: "Energy company looking to the challenges ahead," Oct. 12) After backing off plans to build 11 coal-burning power plants in Texas in 2007, you would think they would study their options more carefully. EFH should have considered solar PV (photovoltaic) power. Numerous U.S. electric utilities are moving aggressively toward utility-scale solar power generation as part of their long-term solution to growing demand for lower-cost electric power.

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 last five strontium-fuelled lighthouses along the Barents Sea coast are now being replaced with solar technology. All together, 153 of the radioactive lighthouses have been removed as part of a Russian-Norwegian project. Since year 2000, Murmansk regional authorities have together with the Norwegian Finnmark county governor removed all the radioactive lighthouses (RITEGs) from the Russian Barents Sea coast. As many as 85 of the lighthouses were located in Murmansk Oblast, while 68 of them were in Arkhangelsk Oblast.

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

The chief executive officer of Alice Springs' native title body says traditional owners should not support a uranium mine south of the town. Darryl Pearce from Lhere Artepe says Aboriginal people would prefer to see solar technology projects instead of uranium mines.

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.

A reckless energy proposal to provide the nuclear industry with $700 billion in federal loan guarantees was revealed in a recent article, "In Alternative Energy Plan, GOP Calls for 100 New Nuclear Plants in 20 years" by Mosheh Oinounou. Evidence suggests that would expose U.S. citizens to more financial, environmental, and health harm and wouldn't provide additional energy for eight to 10 years at the earliest. Every dollar directed to dangerous, polluting, and costly nuclear power in the energy bill is a dollar that won't be available for safer, more sustainable solar and wind power, which can be produced far sooner. Removing hundreds of billions in nuclear power giveaways (past and present), solar and wind power would be far cheaper without the risks. In this economy it's time to shift the entire financial burden to the nuclear industry where it belongs. This latest nuclear power money grab for $700 billion must be stopped. Enough unlimited tax incentives, loans, loan guarantees, and grants. Potentially a trillion dollars could be wasted on nuclear power that makes things worse, not better.

Concerns center on water usage, cost and spent fuel disposal. The future of San Antonio's ever-growing power needs was addressed Aug. 26 in McAllister Fine Arts Center during KSTX's Town Hall forum on energy. While the topic of the forum was all things energy, most of the evening's questions centered on CPS' proposed $10 billion-$13 billion expansion of the South Texas Project nuclear power plant in Bay City, which intends to add two additional nuclear reactors, as well as conversation on use of alternative and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. Construction for the new reactors, dubbed STP 3 & 4, is slated to begin in 2012. CPS' use of renewable resources, including solar, wind and natural gas, equals over 11 percent of the city's peak energy demand, according to the company's Web site. The Web site also lists a goal to increase that percentage to 20 percent by 2020.

Arjun Makhijani: The technical case for nuclear power, just like the technical case for wind energy, and solar energy, is partly built on the idea that it's a low CO2 technology. But it's a high cost, high-risk technology, and that's why I think we shouldn't be doing it. That's electrical and nuclear engineer Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Arjun Makhijani: Nuclear power is very expensive. Today, wind energy, for instance, is cheaper than nuclear power. If you use a combination of efficiency, wind, and solar energy, it would cost less. Makhijani said that there's still no long-term plan for storing radioactive nuclear waste, which some fear could be used to make nuclear weapons. Arjun Makhijani: Plutonium is generated in every nuclear power plant in its operation - about 40 bombs worth every year.

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.