Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

"Wisconsin's Clean Energy Jobs Act could be a job killer -- but not from energy efficiency or renewable energy, as some are claiming, against all evidence. The nuclear portion of the bill is far more likely to raise electric rates by opening the door to building expensive new nuclear reactors and allowing for prepayment schemes to fund them. I was born and raised in Wisconsin but have spent the past decade in Savannah, Ga., working with the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. I've seen firsthand how the push for risky new nuclear reactors has impacted Southeastern states. It's not an experience that Wisconsinites would want to replicate. In recent years Georgia, Florida and South Carolina have all passed legislation to encourage building new nuclear reactors. What's happened next -- particularly in Florida and South Carolina -- is that ratepayers already dealing with tough economic times have seen their electricity bills increase."

A growing number of Carolinians say rising demand for electricity can be met through conservation rather than by building more power plants. That's a key finding of a new poll commissioned by Duke Energy Carolinas. And it reflects a distinct shift in public opinion from two years ago. In the latest poll, 43% of the 1,100 N.C. and S.C. residents surveyed say "people and companies will learn to conserve energy and use significantly less electricity." Only 30% say "government will give permission for more power plants to be built."

A growing number of Carolinians say rising demand for electricity can be met through conservation rather than by building more power plants. That's a key finding of a new poll commissioned by Duke Energy Carolinas. And it reflects a distinct shift in public opinion from two years ago. In the latest poll, 43% of the 1,100 N.C. and S.C. residents surveyed say "people and companies will learn to conserve energy and use significantly less electricity." Only 30% say "government will give permission for more power plants to be built."

Ratings Warning From Moody's Followed by Mothballing of New Reactor Plans in Texas and Ontario; Developments in Line with Cooper Report from June Projecting Trillions in Excess Costs for Nuclear, Compared to Combination of Renewables and More Efficiency. WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Three major developments in the nuclear power industry in late June underscore the key findings of the "The Economics of Nuclear Reactors," a report released on June 18, 2009 by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The Cooper report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables. Available online at http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Academics/Environmental_Law_Center/Institutes_and_Initiatives/Institute_for_Energy_and_the_Environment/New_and_Noteworthy.htm, the Cooper analysis of over three dozen cost estimates for proposed new nuclear reactors shows that the projected price tags for the plants have quadrupled since the start of the industry's so-called "nuclear renaissance" at the beginning of this decade - a striking parallel to the eventually seven-fold increase in reactor costs estimates that doomed the "Great Bandwagon Market" of the 1960s and 1970s, when half of planned nuclear reactors had to be abandoned or cancelled due to massive cost overruns. Cooper said that three late June developments provide new evidence of the validity of the cost-related concerns documented in his report:

"Energy thinker Amory Lovins will speak at Salisbury's Catawba College on Feb. 23. Lovins is co-founder of Rocky Mountain Institute, a "think-and-do tank" that applies market-based solutions to efficient use of resources. Time magazine last year named him one of the world's 100 most influential people. He talked with energy and environment writer Bruce Henderson; comments are edited for clarity and brevity."

Regarding Carolyn D. Heising's Oct. 13 guest opinion: The more urgent question should have been: What is the future for nuclear power? I would agree with Heising on just two points: The United States needs an aggressive program of energy efficiency, and the stakes are too high for vital (energy) decisions to be made on the basis of hope and faith. Not one of her 10 paragraphs even hints at the horrendous problems and worries of nuclear-power generation. Nuclear power has to be perfect, lest a Chernobyl-type accident once again spiels radioactive waste capable of destroying surrounding countryside for generations to come.

Regarding Carolyn D. Heising's Oct. 13 guest opinion: The more urgent question should have been: What is the future for nuclear power? I would agree with Heising on just two points: The United States needs an aggressive program of energy efficiency, and the stakes are too high for vital (energy) decisions to be made on the basis of hope and faith. Not one of her 10 paragraphs even hints at the horrendous problems and worries of nuclear-power generation. Nuclear power has to be perfect, lest a Chernobyl-type accident once again spiels radioactive waste capable of destroying surrounding countryside for generations to come.

"Southern Company Chairman, President and CEO David M. Ratcliffe today announced that the company's Georgia Power subsidiary has reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to accept terms for a conditional commitment for loan guarantees. (Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20080801/SOCOLOGO ) (Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20080801/SOCOLOGO ) "This will provide Georgia Power customers significant savings," said Georgia Power President and CEO Mike Garrett. President Obama and DOE Secretary Steven Chu announced the award of the conditional loan guarantees to Georgia Power on February 16. "This is another step forward on the road to nuclear power playing a prominent role in America's energy future," said Ratcliffe. "Nuclear energy is vital in any effort to make meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and meet this nation's rising demand for electricity. This conditional commitment is an endorsement of the company's performance as a safe, efficient nuclear operator with strong financial integrity." "

"Nuclear energy is a double-edged sword that should be regulated and put under efficient controls, said Jamal Sharaf Chairman of the Jordan Nuclear Regulatory Commission JNRC. He told participants in a nuclear safety course held in cooperation with the Arab Atomic Energy Agency, that safety is the mainstay of radiation protection and control. Sharaf said that the JNRC was ready to receive Arab nuclear staff to be trained on nuclear safety and radiation control, urging broader Arab cooperation in this regard."

Part 1 presented a new study by power plant cost expert Craig Severance that puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at from 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour - triple current U.S. electricity rates! Those ideologically promiscuous folks at the Heritage Foundation have replied with "New Study on Staggering Cost of Nuclear Energy, Staggeringly Pessimistic." Craig's point by point response follows a few of my comments. Heritage is a leader of the conservative movement stagnation. They have written "the only thing a green 'New Deal' will do is lead us down a Green Road to Serfdom," comparing such a policy to "collectivism in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany," and their Senior Policy Analyst in Energy Economics and Climate Change is quite confused about both of the subjects he analyzes (see "Heritage even opposes energy efficiency").

PORTSMOUTH - The energy future belongs not to a "nuclear renaissance" but to a technological revolution involving wind and solar power, energy-efficient houses and affordable electric cars, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League activists marking the group's 40th birthday were told.

A new report suggests building new nuclear power plants would be a bad investment for Wisconsin. The nuclear industry has proposed building dozens of new plants across the country, at a cost of nearly $300 billion. WISPIRG advocate Kara Rumsey says taxpayer subsidies and rate hikes would end up covering a large portion of that price tag. A study from WISPIRG found that renewable energy options can produce more cost-effective electricity. Dollar for dollar, Rumsey says implementing more energy efficient technologies could produce up to five times more energy than nuclear power.

A proposed third nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs won't be needed if Maryland invests in alternative energy sources and reduces consumption, according to a public interest group. "Clean energy can provide Maryland with a more reliable, more affordable supply of electricity," said Johanna Neumann, state director of Maryland Public Interest Research Group, which released a report Thursday making a case for clean energy alternatives.

"Congressman Sestak submitted language directing a study on the use of thorium-liquid fueled nuclear reactors for naval power, an important assessment of an energy source that has shown great potential to be more efficient for our military. As a result, the House Armed Services Committee included funding in the bill for research and development of a nuclear-powered destroyer reactor utilizing thorium energy. While our nuclear Navy has thrived with a continuing record of zero reactor accidents, thorium may be more efficient than uranium as a fuel source. Massive fuel rods would not have to be utilized, and it produces only 1/2000th the waste of uranium. In domestic applications, waste can even be stored on-site, eliminating the necessity of facilities such as Yucca Mountain. Large deposits of thorium can be mined domestically in States such as Idaho, and we already have 160,000 tons in reserve."

Amendments to lift restrictions on nuclear plant construction in Kentucky and allow drilling for oil and gas on state property might be enough to nuke Gov. Steve Beshear's energy bill in the House. House Bill 537, sponsored by Majority Leader Rocky Adkins, D-Sandy Hook, would establish benchmarks for producing more of the state's energy needs from renewable sources, biofuels, coal-to-liquid fuels and such forms of transportation fuels as electric hybrid engines and ethanol by the year 2025. It would also require reducing demand by 25 percent by that time through conservation and efficiency measures. It passed the House easily in its original form and seemed on its way to passage in the Senate.

Nuclear power is not the answer to climate change (Guilty greens admit they could do more, 2 September). Indeed it could well undermine the development of the real solutions - energy efficiency and renewable energy. And yet the Labour government has moved from a position of supporting a programme of replacing older nuclear plants to one of a radical expansion, with talk of a UK nuclear contribution of 35-40% "beyond 2030". Currently the UK gets 13% of its electricity from nuclear sources. The government has also indicated that it saw a major role for exporting UK nuclear technology and expertise. Gordon Brown has indicated that he believes the world needs 1,000 extra nuclear power stations and has argued that Africa could build nuclear power plants to meet growing demands for energy. In 2009 a new UK Nuclear Centre of Excellence was announced to "promote wider access to civil nuclear power across the world", with an initial budget of £20m.

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

The mining of uranium has long been a controversial public issue, and a renewed debate has emerged on the potential for nuclear power to help mitigate against climate change. The central thesis of pro-nuclear advocates is the lower carbon intensity of nuclear energy compared to fossil fuels, although there remains very little detailed analysis of the true carbon costs of nuclear energy. In this paper, we compile and analyze a range of data on uranium mining and milling, including uranium resources as well as sustainability metrics such as energy and water consumption and carbon emissions with respect to uranium productionsarguably the first time for modern projects.

The presidentially appointed commission that oversees the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rejected an appeal by the groups and a state assemblyman challenging the Indian Point license renewal application under the umbrella of WestCAN. The groups include the Westchester Citizens Awareness Network (WestCAN), Rockland County Conservation Association, Public Health and Sustainable Energy (PHASE), Sierra Club -- Atlantic Chapter and state Assemblyman Richard Brodsky. On July 31, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel handling the Indian Point license renewal hearing expelled WestCAN from the proceeding. It did so because the counsel for WestCAN repeatedly disregarded agency regulations and instructions from the panel. In its ruling Tuesday, the commission upheld the expulsion, noting that the actions by WestCAN's counsel have "seriously disrupted the Board's efforts to meet its responsibility to conduct a fair, orderly and efficient hearing, has interfered with the other participants' efforts to use their own litigation resources efficiently, and has made our own review of the appellate documents and the underlying record far more time-consuming than necessary."

It's the first step toward widespread Korean export of today's most promising clean energy source. Korea now has some of the world's most efficient, cutting-edge plant designs. It might seem strange for a bunch of nuclear power plants in the United Arab Emirates that aren't even built yet to be all over the evening news in Korea, but that's exactly what happened last month.

It's the first step toward widespread Korean export of today's most promising clean energy source. Korea now has some of the world's most efficient, cutting-edge plant designs. It might seem strange for a bunch of nuclear power plants in the United Arab Emirates that aren't even built yet to be all over the evening news in Korea, but that's exactly what happened last month.

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.

Large-scale implementation of nuclear power cannot be the solution to the future energy and climate problems of the world. Costs, constraints on uranium supply and technological shortcoming, well known to the nuclear industry, undermine the case for a nuclear future. There are better and cheaper alternatives, starting with more efficient energy use, wind power and biomass. Some facts, technical dreams and misconceptions are discussed in this article, from a physical point of view.