Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Republicans on the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said Wednesday that panel Chairman Jeff Bingaman has agreed to include some incentives for new nuclear energy projects, clean coal and waste-to-energy in a renewable electricity mandate, though the change will not be enough to satisfy most of the panel's minority party members. The committee will vote on amendments Thursday, with a final vote on the full energy bill due as early as next week. Changes made to the renewable electricity standard will likely garner enough support to clear the committee, though only Kansas Republican Sam Brownback is considered likely to vote with Democrats in favor of the measure. In its current form, the RES supported by Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat, and most or all of the panel's other Democrats would require utilities to derive 11% of their output from renewable energy and 4% from energy efficiency improvements. Robert Dillon, a spokesman for the panel's top Republican Lisa Murkowski, said that Bingaman had also agreed to take all new nuclear energy projects out of a utility's baseline, reducing the amount of renewable energy required to meet the standard. Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, would like existing nuclear energy to receive the same treatment.

In remarks focused on the promise of renewable energy and demand-side management, US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Jon Wellinghoff on Wednesday suggested that there may never be another new nuclear or coal power plant built in the country. Pointing to upwards of 1,000 GW of potential wind energy in the Midwest and West, new solar power production and storage technologies and emerging hydrokinetic power resources, Wellinghoff asserted that renewables are poised to play a substantial, gap-filling role in the US energy picture.

The fall-out from Copenhagen has left the world's biggest "carbon criminals", among them Australia, exposed on climate change. With the overthrow of Malcolm Turnbull in the Liberal party along with the proposed ETS, the ascension of Tony Abbot and his emphasis on "direct action" it was inevitable that the federal Opposition would revisit nuclear power as an option for a low-carbon future in Australia. Given the recent sobering Government report on carbon capture and storage, "clean coal" seems less and less as the likely saviour.

The fall-out from Copenhagen has left the world's biggest "carbon criminals", among them Australia, exposed on climate change. With the overthrow of Malcolm Turnbull in the Liberal party along with the proposed ETS, the ascension of Tony Abbot and his emphasis on "direct action" it was inevitable that the federal Opposition would revisit nuclear power as an option for a low-carbon future in Australia. Given the recent sobering Government report on carbon capture and storage, "clean coal" seems less and less as the likely saviour.

A supply glut could see uranium prices tumble over coming months, but that will be a buying opportunity as demand from nuclear reactors over coming years is expected to surge. Governments around the world are sizing up nuclear energy -- a means of generating electricity -- as an alternative to expensive fossil fuels such as crude oil and coal, which pollute the atmosphere when burned. Uranium on the spot market could fall to $35 a lb over the next quarter, to its lowest since late 2005 from around $45 a lb currently and $136 a lb in June 2007.

A supply glut could see uranium prices tumble over coming months, but that will be a buying opportunity as demand from nuclear reactors over coming years is expected to surge. Governments around the world are sizing up nuclear energy -- a means of generating electricity -- as an alternative to expensive fossil fuels such as crude oil and coal, which pollute the atmosphere when burned. Uranium on the spot market could fall to $35 a lb over the next quarter, to its lowest since late 2005 from around $45 a lb currently and $136 a lb in June 2007.

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."

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."

"NUCLEAR power will be the Western world's cheapest option for electricity in an age of significant carbon charges, but Australia will be one of the few exceptions, a global study has found. In a stunning conclusion, the study by the OECD and the International Energy Agency found that even with a carbon charge of $US30 ($A33) a tonne, it ill be cheaper for Australian generators to burn black coal and send the emissions into the atmosphere than to turn to gas or other low-emission alternatives."

"Statement of Tyson Slocum, Director of Public Citizen's Energy Program After half a year of delay, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are set to release their nuclear energy/cap-and-trade bill today. Until we see legislative text, we can comment only on the broad outline made available yesterday and an additional summary being circulated among legislative staff. It's not accurate to call this a climate bill. This is nuclear energy-promoting, oil drilling-championing, coal mining-boosting legislation with a weak carbon-pricing mechanism thrown in. What's worse, it guts the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) current authority to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Here's our take on what we know is in the new bill: Nuclear Power Incentives At its core, this legislation is all about promoting nuclear power and handing taxpayers the bill. Consider:"

Is the Climate Bill morphing into an excuse to promote fossil fuels and new nuclear power plants? Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) recent promotion of a pro-nuke/pro-drilling/pro-coal agenda in the name of Climate Protection has been highlighted in a New York Times op ed co-authored with Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC). The piece brands nuke power "our single largest contributor of emissions-free power." It advocates abolishing "cumbersome regulations" so utilities can "secure financing for more plants." And it wants "serious investment" to "find solutions to our nuclear waste problem."

Is the Climate Bill morphing into an excuse to promote fossil fuels and new nuclear power plants? Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) recent promotion of a pro-nuke/pro-drilling/pro-coal agenda in the name of Climate Protection has been highlighted in a New York Times op ed co-authored with Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC). The piece brands nuke power "our single largest contributor of emissions-free power." It advocates abolishing "cumbersome regulations" so utilities can "secure financing for more plants." And it wants "serious investment" to "find solutions to our nuclear waste problem."

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

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

The Washington Capitals are opening the NHL season with a new sponsor that has some environmentalists seeing red instead of green. The Nuclear Energy Institute says it's placing signs at the Verizon Center to promote the clean-air benefits of nuclear energy. Supporters say nuclear energy provides electricity without the emissions of coal or other fossil fuels. But environmental groups such as Greenpeace are crying foul. Nuclear policy analyst Jim Riccio says the Washington-based group doesn't want sports teams being used to greenwash nuclear power, which it believes isn't a solution to global warming. The group says nuclear plants take years to build and methods of disposing nuclear waste haven't been developed.

The Washington Capitals are opening the NHL season with a new sponsor that has some environmentalists seeing red instead of green. The Nuclear Energy Institute says it's placing signs at the Verizon Center to promote the clean-air benefits of nuclear energy. Supporters say nuclear energy provides electricity without the emissions of coal or other fossil fuels. But environmental groups such as Greenpeace are crying foul. Nuclear policy analyst Jim Riccio says the Washington-based group doesn't want sports teams being used to greenwash nuclear power, which it believes isn't a solution to global warming. The group says nuclear plants take years to build and methods of disposing nuclear waste haven't been developed.

Tories court property owners with promise of free cost-saving home improvement scheme and pledge 'immediate action to to keep Britain's lights on' The Conservative party annual conference in Manchester. Photograph: Christopher Thomond Every UK homeowners will benefit from an allowance of up to £6,500 to make their properties more energy efficient, under a "green deal" proposed by the Conservatives today. The idea is part of a wider energy and climate change package aimed at kick-starting a green economy in the UK. The shadow energy and climate change secretary, Greg Clark, said a Tory government would immediately approve construction of several nuclear and coal-fired power stations to help prevent electricity blackouts in the next decade, to strengthen the national grid and enable the harnessing of renewable energy sources at sea, and to boost the number of charging points for electric cars.

Tories court property owners with promise of free cost-saving home improvement scheme and pledge 'immediate action to to keep Britain's lights on' The Conservative party annual conference in Manchester. Photograph: Christopher Thomond Every UK homeowners will benefit from an allowance of up to £6,500 to make their properties more energy efficient, under a "green deal" proposed by the Conservatives today. The idea is part of a wider energy and climate change package aimed at kick-starting a green economy in the UK. The shadow energy and climate change secretary, Greg Clark, said a Tory government would immediately approve construction of several nuclear and coal-fired power stations to help prevent electricity blackouts in the next decade, to strengthen the national grid and enable the harnessing of renewable energy sources at sea, and to boost the number of charging points for electric cars.

The Finnish debate about the number of nuclear power stations to be built over the next couple of decades flared up on Wednesday with Mauri Pekkarinen (centre), the economic affairs minister, calling for caution in granting building permission for more than one unit. He said at an energy seminar in Helsinki that while the replacement of coal-fired power station meant one extra nuclear unit was needed there were no grounds to approve the construction of several. Mr Pekkarinen added that existing capacity and power stations under construction at the moment could sate projected demand until the 2020s. Jyrki Katainen (cons), the finance minister, had repeated that the government should propose the approval of all three nuclear power station applications. The Green League, part of the centre-right-led coalition, said even a single new nuclear power station was unnecessary.

The Finnish debate about the number of nuclear power stations to be built over the next couple of decades flared up on Wednesday with Mauri Pekkarinen (centre), the economic affairs minister, calling for caution in granting building permission for more than one unit. He said at an energy seminar in Helsinki that while the replacement of coal-fired power station meant one extra nuclear unit was needed there were no grounds to approve the construction of several. Mr Pekkarinen added that existing capacity and power stations under construction at the moment could sate projected demand until the 2020s. Jyrki Katainen (cons), the finance minister, had repeated that the government should propose the approval of all three nuclear power station applications. The Green League, part of the centre-right-led coalition, said even a single new nuclear power station was unnecessary.

Opponents raised environmental concerns Tuesday about the Tennessee Valley Authority's plans to finish a second nuclear reactor at its Watts Bar site in Tennessee. The Sierra Club, the Tennessee Environmental Council and others told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they worry the only commercial reactor now under construction in the United States will harm the Tennessee River and endanger surrounding communities. They suggested TVA's massive coal ash spill upriver at Kingston is a reflection of the federal utility's management and that the 1960s-designed reactor will be out-of-date before it's even finished.

Opponents raised environmental concerns Tuesday about the Tennessee Valley Authority's plans to finish a second nuclear reactor at its Watts Bar site in Tennessee. The Sierra Club, the Tennessee Environmental Council and others told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they worry the only commercial reactor now under construction in the United States will harm the Tennessee River and endanger surrounding communities. They suggested TVA's massive coal ash spill upriver at Kingston is a reflection of the federal utility's management and that the 1960s-designed reactor will be out-of-date before it's even finished.

There are three main problems with the nuclear "solution" to climate change - it is a blunt instrument, a dangerous one, and it is unnecessary. First, nuclear power could at most make a modest contribution to climate change abatement. The main limitation is that it is used almost exclusively for electricity generation, which accounts for about one-quarter of global greenhouse emissions. Doubling global nuclear power output by mid-century at the expense of coal would reduce greenhouse emissions by about 5%.

There are three main problems with the nuclear "solution" to climate change - it is a blunt instrument, a dangerous one, and it is unnecessary. First, nuclear power could at most make a modest contribution to climate change abatement. The main limitation is that it is used almost exclusively for electricity generation, which accounts for about one-quarter of global greenhouse emissions. Doubling global nuclear power output by mid-century at the expense of coal would reduce greenhouse emissions by about 5%.

The National Research Council governing board's executive committee will meet next month to discuss the study that would determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in Virginia. The meeting will take place Nov. 10 in Washington and will be closed to the public, said Jennifer Walsh, spokeswoman for the National Academy of Sciences. Walsh said she does not know if the committee will decide during next month's meeting whether to approve the study. Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. VUI, through Virginia Tech's Center for Coal and Energy Research, would pay for the study's first phase focusing on the technical and public-safety aspects of mining.

The National Research Council governing board's executive committee will meet next month to discuss the study that would determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in Virginia. The meeting will take place Nov. 10 in Washington and will be closed to the public, said Jennifer Walsh, spokeswoman for the National Academy of Sciences. Walsh said she does not know if the committee will decide during next month's meeting whether to approve the study. Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. VUI, through Virginia Tech's Center for Coal and Energy Research, would pay for the study's first phase focusing on the technical and public-safety aspects of mining.

British families could be forced to pay up to £227 extra on their annual energy bills to help to fund a new generation of nuclear power stations under plans proposed by the French company expected to build most of them. EDF Energy, which wants to build four reactors in Britain at a cost of about £20 billion, was accused of holding the Government to ransom last night, after an executive told The Times that none would be built unless the Government agreed to underwrite part of the cost. Speaking before a government announcement on Britain's energy future on Monday, Humphrey Cadoux-Hudson, managing director of EDF Energy's new nuclear business in Britain, said the nuclear programme would proceed only if the Government ensured that consumers paid more for electricity from fossil fuels, such as coal and gas, which is cheaper but produces more greenhouse gas, making nuclear more competitive.

British families could be forced to pay up to £227 extra on their annual energy bills to help to fund a new generation of nuclear power stations under plans proposed by the French company expected to build most of them. EDF Energy, which wants to build four reactors in Britain at a cost of about £20 billion, was accused of holding the Government to ransom last night, after an executive told The Times that none would be built unless the Government agreed to underwrite part of the cost. Speaking before a government announcement on Britain's energy future on Monday, Humphrey Cadoux-Hudson, managing director of EDF Energy's new nuclear business in Britain, said the nuclear programme would proceed only if the Government ensured that consumers paid more for electricity from fossil fuels, such as coal and gas, which is cheaper but produces more greenhouse gas, making nuclear more competitive.

Regarding the guest editorial "Time to reconsider nuclear power" published Monday, there are numerous aspects to nuclear power that the author fails to mention. Most importantly, when the Pioneer of Bemidji states that nuclear power is a clean energy source, that "today's technological advances can produce safe, efficient power plants," they are seriously mistaken. While coal burning is mentioned as a possibility for a continued and extensive source of energy, the level of carbon produced makes it seem like not a viable option. However, it is discovered that nuclear energy is not a very green choice, either.

Regarding the guest editorial "Time to reconsider nuclear power" published Monday, there are numerous aspects to nuclear power that the author fails to mention. Most importantly, when the Pioneer of Bemidji states that nuclear power is a clean energy source, that "today's technological advances can produce safe, efficient power plants," they are seriously mistaken. While coal burning is mentioned as a possibility for a continued and extensive source of energy, the level of carbon produced makes it seem like not a viable option. However, it is discovered that nuclear energy is not a very green choice, either.

Government plans to fast-track major projects pose a real threat to their action plan on global warming (UK's nuclear future is mapped out as race to tackle climate change hots up, 10 November). Reports on the government's national policy statements have predictably focussed on the controversial issue of new nuclear reactors, but a fundamental flaw in the proposals, which has gone largely unreported, threatens to undermine UK targets for tackling climate change. Under the Climate Change Act, the UK has been set legally binding "carbon budgets", setting limits on how much carbon the UK can emit, over five-year budget periods, for the next 15 years. Some of the projects covered by the national policy statements, such as new coal and gas-fired power stations, are likely to have a significant impact on UK emissions - but bizarrely the effect that these developments would have on UK carbon budgets is missing from the proposals, and this issue won't be considered by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC).

Government plans to fast-track major projects pose a real threat to their action plan on global warming (UK's nuclear future is mapped out as race to tackle climate change hots up, 10 November). Reports on the government's national policy statements have predictably focussed on the controversial issue of new nuclear reactors, but a fundamental flaw in the proposals, which has gone largely unreported, threatens to undermine UK targets for tackling climate change. Under the Climate Change Act, the UK has been set legally binding "carbon budgets", setting limits on how much carbon the UK can emit, over five-year budget periods, for the next 15 years. Some of the projects covered by the national policy statements, such as new coal and gas-fired power stations, are likely to have a significant impact on UK emissions - but bizarrely the effect that these developments would have on UK carbon budgets is missing from the proposals, and this issue won't be considered by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC).

Will there be a nuclear power renaissance in the United States, as a host of rosy-glassed prognosticators have predicted? Not as long as it remains such an abysmal investment opportunity, Matthew Wald writes in Technology Review's November-December issue. Wald, a New York Times reporter, contends that nuclear has come a long way in reliability and efficiency but still carries some serious financial baggage. "As the possibility of an accident that panics or injures the neighbors has diminished," he writes, "the likelihood has grown that even a properly functioning new reactor will be unable to pay for itself." Wald cites three factors, all in flux, that make nuclear a huge financial risk. One is the sheer cost of building a new reactor, $4,000 per kilowatt of capacity using optimistic math, which is more than coal ($3,000) and far more than natural gas ($800). Another is the future competitive landscape in energy, and thus the price of electricity. And finally, no one is certain of the future price of fossil fuels, especially natural gas, which could change the whole equation.

Will there be a nuclear power renaissance in the United States, as a host of rosy-glassed prognosticators have predicted? Not as long as it remains such an abysmal investment opportunity, Matthew Wald writes in Technology Review's November-December issue. Wald, a New York Times reporter, contends that nuclear has come a long way in reliability and efficiency but still carries some serious financial baggage. "As the possibility of an accident that panics or injures the neighbors has diminished," he writes, "the likelihood has grown that even a properly functioning new reactor will be unable to pay for itself." Wald cites three factors, all in flux, that make nuclear a huge financial risk. One is the sheer cost of building a new reactor, $4,000 per kilowatt of capacity using optimistic math, which is more than coal ($3,000) and far more than natural gas ($800). Another is the future competitive landscape in energy, and thus the price of electricity. And finally, no one is certain of the future price of fossil fuels, especially natural gas, which could change the whole equation.

"In the Polish village of Klempicz, less than an hour from the German border, Lech Wojcieszynski is hoping to bring the first atomic reactor to his country, overcoming the Chernobyl disaster's legacy. "I remember Chernobyl very well, but how long ago was that?" said Wojcieszynski, a local entrepreneur who arranged meetings with residents and government officials responsible for nuclear policy. "Technology has moved on to a completely different level." Nuclear power is back in vogue in Eastern Europe 24 years after the meltdown at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine, the worst nuclear accident in history, which blanketed the region with radioactive dust and halted development of atomic power. Klempicz is second on a list of 27 sites competing for the $11 billion project. A decision will be made at the end of the year in the country where burning coal supplies 95 percent of energy. "