Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

"Nuclear power is a safer, more environmentally friendly source of electricity. So why does the US still rely on coal and oil instead?"

"Japan could phase out nuclear power by the end of next year and generate 43 percent of its electricity by 2020 from renewable energy, according to a report compiled by Greenpeace International and the Tokyo-based Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies. To meet these goals, Greenpeace and ISEP called on Japan to reduce electricity demand by 1.7 percent a year on average between now and 2020. Other proposals are to use more liquid natural gas, which releases less emissions than coal or oil-fired plants."

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.

There's still nowhere to put that toxic waste Nuclear electricity is affordable and emission free People opposed to nuclear energy applications point to the high initial price tag of enormous nuclear generating facilities that can … read more provide enough reliable electricity for several million people; they often overlook the resulting low cost per unit of power when spread over that large market. There are 104 nuclear plants operating in the US today. Many of us who are old enough to remember the controversies surrounding their construction can remember how many times we were told that nuclear power plants are frighteningly expensive and that they always cost more than predicted. We even remember that electrical power prices often increased immediately after the plants went into operation due to the effect of adding those big, expensive plants into the utility rate base. What many people who consider "news" media to be their only information sources rarely understand, however, is that the 104 plants currently operating provide the US with 20% of its electric power at an average production cost of about 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour. They also do not understand that after a few decades of operation and revenue production, the initial mortgages on those plants are largely paid off. The best information of all, which is not really "news" and does not get regularly published on the front page, is that the plants still have at least 20 years of life remaining during which they can produce emission free, low cost power. The companies that own the plants and their stock holders understand the economics pretty well; that is why 18 applications for 25 new plants have been turned into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission already with more in the pipeline. All of the used fuel - what some people call waste - is being carefully stored in a tiny corner of the existing sites, just waiting to be recycled into new fuel. It still contains 95% of its initial potential energy, but

There's still nowhere to put that toxic waste Nuclear electricity is affordable and emission free People opposed to nuclear energy applications point to the high initial price tag of enormous nuclear generating facilities that can … read more provide enough reliable electricity for several million people; they often overlook the resulting low cost per unit of power when spread over that large market. There are 104 nuclear plants operating in the US today. Many of us who are old enough to remember the controversies surrounding their construction can remember how many times we were told that nuclear power plants are frighteningly expensive and that they always cost more than predicted. We even remember that electrical power prices often increased immediately after the plants went into operation due to the effect of adding those big, expensive plants into the utility rate base. What many people who consider "news" media to be their only information sources rarely understand, however, is that the 104 plants currently operating provide the US with 20% of its electric power at an average production cost of about 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour. They also do not understand that after a few decades of operation and revenue production, the initial mortgages on those plants are largely paid off. The best information of all, which is not really "news" and does not get regularly published on the front page, is that the plants still have at least 20 years of life remaining during which they can produce emission free, low cost power. The companies that own the plants and their stock holders understand the economics pretty well; that is why 18 applications for 25 new plants have been turned into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission already with more in the pipeline. All of the used fuel - what some people call waste - is being carefully stored in a tiny corner of the existing sites, just waiting to be recycled into new fuel. It still contains 95% of its initial potential energy, but

Thousands of Safety Violations Still Pending Because of Lack of Funding; Agency Needs New Leadership WASHINGTON, D.C. - Facing a backlog of more than 13,000 unheard safety cases, the federal agency responsible for ruling on mine safety violations is in urgent need of more resources and new leadership, Public Citizen said in letters sent today to President Obama and members of Congress. Agency officials estimate that under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission's current funding level, the commission will need at least five years to address its existing case backlog, excluding any new cases that arise during that time, according to Public Citizen's letter. Public Citizen is calling on Congress to increase the budget of the mine safety commission to bring it in line with other agencies that fill similar roles. For example, the mine commission's budget is $2 million lower than that of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, despite having 6.5 times as many outstanding cases. The public interest group also is calling for Obama to replace the current chairman, a Bush administration holdover and a former attorney for the mining industry's lobbying organization, who has done little to garner additional resources for the mining commission.

Policy analysts typically evaluate proposed new policies against the status quo. From this perspective, the question of whether Congress should encourage the development of nuclear power is moot, because support for nuclear power is a central element of the status quo. Over the last 20 years the federal government has taken numerous steps to encourage nuclear power. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission streamlined the process for developing nuclear power plants; approving standardized reactor designs, allowing utilities to obtain pre-approval for reactor locations that may be banked for future use, and creating combined construction and operating licenses.

On the wall of West Virginia Sen. Dan Foster's office is an old photograph of a whitewashed church in the hills outside Oak Ridge, Tenn. The Kanawha County Democrat grew up in Oak Ridge, where plutonium was produced for nuclear weapons during World War II. "In that church from maybe mid-1944 until the spring of 1945 was where they stored the enriched uranium they used in the Hiroshima bomb," Foster said. "Nobody knew it but about three or four people." Foster co-sponsored a bill in the spring to repeal West Virginia's effective ban on nuclear power in the state. "I've lived around nuclear energy and nuclear reactors," he said. "I am aware of the changing technology of the newer reactors." Three of those newer reactors have been proposed in states adjacent to West Virginia.

On the wall of West Virginia Sen. Dan Foster's office is an old photograph of a whitewashed church in the hills outside Oak Ridge, Tenn. The Kanawha County Democrat grew up in Oak Ridge, where plutonium was produced for nuclear weapons during World War II. "In that church from maybe mid-1944 until the spring of 1945 was where they stored the enriched uranium they used in the Hiroshima bomb," Foster said. "Nobody knew it but about three or four people." Foster co-sponsored a bill in the spring to repeal West Virginia's effective ban on nuclear power in the state. "I've lived around nuclear energy and nuclear reactors," he said. "I am aware of the changing technology of the newer reactors." Three of those newer reactors have been proposed in states adjacent to West Virginia.

Model for new UK reactors reveals damaging disagreements between Finland and French contractors From the outside, there is nothing unusual about the warehouse by the offices on Finland's Olkiluoto island, site of what should have been the world's first modern nuclear reactor. But inside, stacked on five kilometres of shelving, are 160,000 documents. "If a valve for the reactor is changed, it comes in a small box and a van full of documents," complains Jouni Silvennoinen, project director for Teollisuuden Voima (TVO), the Finnish utility that ordered the plant from the Franco-German consortium Areva-Siemens. The paper mountain helps explain why the reactor, which should have cost €3bn (£2.72bn) and been working this year, will now miss its revised completion date of mid-2012 and will cost at least €5.3bn. In the latest delay, Finland's nuclear safety regulator halted welding on the reactor last week and criticised poor oversight by the sub-contractor, supplier and TVO.

Model for new UK reactors reveals damaging disagreements between Finland and French contractors From the outside, there is nothing unusual about the warehouse by the offices on Finland's Olkiluoto island, site of what should have been the world's first modern nuclear reactor. But inside, stacked on five kilometres of shelving, are 160,000 documents. "If a valve for the reactor is changed, it comes in a small box and a van full of documents," complains Jouni Silvennoinen, project director for Teollisuuden Voima (TVO), the Finnish utility that ordered the plant from the Franco-German consortium Areva-Siemens. The paper mountain helps explain why the reactor, which should have cost €3bn (£2.72bn) and been working this year, will now miss its revised completion date of mid-2012 and will cost at least €5.3bn. In the latest delay, Finland's nuclear safety regulator halted welding on the reactor last week and criticised poor oversight by the sub-contractor, supplier and TVO.