Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

"Vermont is showing the nation that it doesn't need nuclear power, said Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., on Wednesday during an Environment and Public Works Committee oversight hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Green Mountain State has proven people can rely on energy efficiencies to reduce their electric consumption and on renewables to provide the supply that they need, he said. "Vermont is a leader in energy efficiency," he said. "We have reduced our electric consumption thanks to ... energy efficiency (and) our people do not live in caves." Over the past 10 years, said Sanders, the state has cut its electric consumption by 1.5 percent each year. By 2020, if the nation were to be "slightly more aggressive" than Vermont in its energy efficiency implementation, it could reduce its peak electric demands by 117,000 megawatts. "That would save more power than the entire capacity of the existing United States nuclear power plant fleet," said Sanders. "

TVA is scaling back plans for new reactors at its Bellefonte Nuclear Plant in northeast Alabama as it moves forward with building a natural-gas-powered generator adjacent to a coal-fired steam plant near Rogersville, Tenn. Advertisement The Bellefonte plant, picked three years ago as a possible site for America's next reactor and once eyed for up to four reactors, is now being studied for a single reactor to be built within the next decade. TVA announced Friday that falling power sales and rising cleanup costs at the Kingston ash spill have changed plans for the nuclear plant in Hollywood, Ala. "As the valley grows, TVA intends to meet the demand for power with a combination of conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy sources and additional base load generation," TVA Senior Vice President Ashok Bhatnagar said.

TVA is scaling back plans for new reactors at its Bellefonte Nuclear Plant in northeast Alabama as it moves forward with building a natural-gas-powered generator adjacent to a coal-fired steam plant near Rogersville, Tenn. Advertisement The Bellefonte plant, picked three years ago as a possible site for America's next reactor and once eyed for up to four reactors, is now being studied for a single reactor to be built within the next decade. TVA announced Friday that falling power sales and rising cleanup costs at the Kingston ash spill have changed plans for the nuclear plant in Hollywood, Ala. "As the valley grows, TVA intends to meet the demand for power with a combination of conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy sources and additional base load generation," TVA Senior Vice President Ashok Bhatnagar said.

TVA is scaling back plans for new reactors at its Bellefonte Nuclear Plant in northeast Alabama as it moves forward with building a natural-gas-powered generator adjacent to a coal-fired steam plant near Rogersville, Tenn. Advertisement The Bellefonte plant, picked three years ago as a possible site for America's next reactor and once eyed for up to four reactors, is now being studied for a single reactor to be built within the next decade. TVA announced Friday that falling power sales and rising cleanup costs at the Kingston ash spill have changed plans for the nuclear plant in Hollywood, Ala. "As the valley grows, TVA intends to meet the demand for power with a combination of conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy sources and additional base load generation," TVA Senior Vice President Ashok Bhatnagar said.

A US House of Representatives subcommittee on Thursday approved a $26.9-billion budget for the US Department of Energy in fiscal 2010. The budget largely supports an Obama administration proposal in May that included substantial increases for energy efficiency and renewable energy and a reversal in DOE's plans for a nuclear waste repository in Nevada. It includes $2.2 billion for DOE's energy-efficiency and renewable-energy programs, which was $69 million short of the administration's request, but $321 million more than the department is spending on such activities in fiscal 2009, according to House Appropriations Committee data.

Schacherl describes the nuclear agenda for Alberta. Bruce Power, a private nuclear operator from Ontario, is proposing to build four large first-of-a-kind nuclear reactors in the Peace River region that would produce 4,000 megawatts of nuclear power. As the Pembina Institute has shown in "Greening the Grid," (http://re.pembina.org/pub/1763) all of our electrical needs can be met in Alberta over the next 20 years through energy efficiency, cogeneration and renewable energy such as wind, power and geothermal. "From wind power alone, there is 11,500 megawatts in applications waiting to be considered. The excess energy that nuclear would produce would end up being exported likely to the United States," verifies Schacherl. One of the reasons why nuclear energy is being installed in Northern Alberta is for assisting oil sands operation for the purpose of extracting bitumen. However, Schacherl explains that in March 2007, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources concluded that "classic nuclear plants are too big for oil sands development and that smaller plants would have to be considered."

Schacherl describes the nuclear agenda for Alberta. Bruce Power, a private nuclear operator from Ontario, is proposing to build four large first-of-a-kind nuclear reactors in the Peace River region that would produce 4,000 megawatts of nuclear power. As the Pembina Institute has shown in "Greening the Grid," (http://re.pembina.org/pub/1763) all of our electrical needs can be met in Alberta over the next 20 years through energy efficiency, cogeneration and renewable energy such as wind, power and geothermal. "From wind power alone, there is 11,500 megawatts in applications waiting to be considered. The excess energy that nuclear would produce would end up being exported likely to the United States," verifies Schacherl. One of the reasons why nuclear energy is being installed in Northern Alberta is for assisting oil sands operation for the purpose of extracting bitumen. However, Schacherl explains that in March 2007, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources concluded that "classic nuclear plants are too big for oil sands development and that smaller plants would have to be considered."

To expand the use of clean and renewable energy sources and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, Energy Secretary Steven Chu today announced $41.9 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding for fuel cell technology. These efforts will accelerate the commercialization and deployment of fuel cells and will create jobs in fuel cell manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and support services. The new funding will improve the potential of fuel cells to provide power in stationary, portable and specialty vehicle applications, while cutting carbon emissions and broadening our nation's clean energy technology portfolio. "The investments we're making today will help us build a robust fuel cell manufacturing industry in the United States," said Secretary Chu. "Developing and deploying the next generation of fuel cells will not only create jobs - it will help our businesses become more energy efficient and productive. We are laying the foundation for a green energy economy."

If plans to build a new fleet of nuclear power plants make it past the drawing board, the cost to taxpayers and electricity consumers could be massive, according to a new study released by the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. In a 78-page report, economist Mark Cooper concluded that investing the money in efficiency and renewable power would be more economical than building new nuclear power plants. "The likely cost of electricity for a new generation of nuclear reactors would be 12 to 20 cents per kilowatt hour, considerably more expensive than the average cost of increased use of energy efficiency and renewable energies at 6 cents per kilowatt hour," stated a summary of the report. Cooper's report found that during the life of 100 new nuclear reactors the cost to ratepayers and American taxpayers could be between $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more than the same power generated by a combination of energy efficiency and renewable power.

Sunday's Sun editorial claims the Constellation Energy Group-Electricite de France deal will help ratepayers, in part because EDF might construct a new nuclear reactor that will increase Maryland's supply of electricity ("PSC's power play," Sept. 20). The cost of a new nuclear reactor is in the billions, and the electricity generated by the reactor may not be available for a decade. The problem is that ratepayers are suffering high energy costs now. The best and most immediate solution to our high energy costs is investment in energy efficiency. Instead of investing billions into nuclear, we should invest heavily in weatherizing and retrofitting our homes and businesses. By doing so, we will decrease the amount of electricity needed to turn on our lights and keep us warm in the winter. In fact, studies demonstrate that we can reduce Maryland's electricity use by 15 percent by the year 2015 through basic energy efficiency projects. We owe it to ratepayers to start lowering utility rates today, not in a decade. Fielding Huseth, Baltimore

"US Department of Energy officials on Tuesday voiced their support for a wide range of energy-related bills in the Senate, but were at a loss to explain why a bill that would give the agency authority to sell uranium is needed. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee considered six bills that would encourage solar panel use (S. 3460), increase natural-gas-turbine research and development (S. 2900), improve energy efficiency at federal buildings (S. 3251), expand best practices for supply-chain efficiency (S. 3396), increase research and development of heavy-duty plug-in-hybrid trucks (S. 679) and a measure introduced by Wyoming Republican Senator John Barrasso (S. 3233) that would give authority to DOE to barter, sell or transfer surplus uranium. But Shane Johnson, the chief operating officer of DOE's office of nuclear energy said that the agency already has such authority and he does not believe the legislation is necessary. "

On 28 and 29 August the town of Svishtov is hosting the Pan-European Energy Conference. It is organized by the Coalition BeleNE, meaning No to Belene where Belene is the site for a new Bulgarian nuclear plant. The forum seeks to identify the problems of the sector and to suggest a few solutions to them. Central to the conference is the need of a new energy strategy of Bulgaria; energy efficiency; and the future of nuclear energy in Europe. Experts, scientists, environmentalists, journalists and NGO officials from more than 10 European countries will present their analyses of the energy market in the Balkans. They will discuss the opportunities for the development of renewable energy sources in Bulgaria. Another highlight of the meeting will be the Belene NPP and the arguments of environmentalists who have urged authorities to suspend the project. Participants will cast light on the impact that a future Belene NPP could have on the 100 km zone around the reactor in both Bulgaria and neighboring Romania.

Earlier this year, the San Antonio City Council adopted a vision to make the Alamo City one of the greenest cities in America. The "Mission Verde" plan envisioned solar panels on every rooftop, high efficiency homes that helped lower electric bills, and good-paying local jobs created to make all this happen. But CPS Energy has a different vision. While making some encouraging investments in clean energy, the utility's primary energy strategy continues to focus on polluting, unsustainable energy sources. They've just built a new coal-fired power plant, and now they want to invest in two new expensive and dirty nuclear reactors that San Antonio doesn't need. CPS claims that building the new nuclear reactors - at an eye-popping price of $5.2 billion - won't compromise San Antonio's ability to also develop clean sources of energy. But that claim doesn't hold water.

Focusing our efforts on nuclear power distracts us from concentrating on energy efficiency and renewable energy - alternatives that provide the safest, cleanest and most dependable means to securing our energy future. We have the ability to meet our energy needs and have a clean and healthy state without nuclear power. If Idaho's leaders scrutinized the drawbacks of nuclear reactors and contrasted those drawbacks with the benefits of energy efficiency, conservation and renewables, Idaho wouldn't be so quick to jump on the nuclear band wagon.

# The Department of Energy and its program offices have worked diligently to compile comprehensive information, including all previous and forthcoming issues and developments, for the next administration in order to provide a timely and efficient transition. # The smooth and collegial transfer of power from one Presidential administration to the next is a hallmark of American democracy. It is always an enormous undertaking and requires hard work and a lot of coordination. # With energy security being a key component of our national security, DOE has additional responsibilities to establish and execute a transition plan that minimizes disruption and maintains continuity in these key areas. # In order to outline an effective foundation and blueprint for the next administration, DOE began transition work very early in 2008. # Secretary Bodman has directed his team to be forward-leaning in all our efforts to ensure as smooth and effective a transition as possible. Acting Deputy Secretary Jeffrey Kupfer has been leading the 2008 transition work at the U.S. Department of Energy. # Ingrid Kolb, a seasoned 30-year federal employee, has been named DOE's 2008 Agency Transition Coordinator and is overseeing daily transition operations. Jay Hoffman, Director of Program Analysis & Evaluation at DOE, is assisting Kolb with the preparation of transition briefing materials. # With a $24 billion budget, approximately 115,000 employees, and 17 national laboratories, the Department is involved in many aspects of global energy security - a seamless transition at DOE to the next Administration is vitally important.

"The entire budget of the U.S. Department of Energy branch that covers today's energy mix-from cleaning up energy generation's environmental aftermath to energy efficiency programs and renewable energy development-is $10 billion. That's enough to "either build one supercollider on the basic end or one nuclear power plant on the applied end," said Kristina Johnson, the undersecretary in charge of the branch, at the ARPA-E conference on March 3. In other words, nuclear power ain't cheap. "

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.

The likely cost of electricity for a new generation of nuclear reactors would be 12-20 cents per kilowatt hour (KWh), considerably more expensive than the average cost of increased use of energy efficiency and renewable energies at 6 cents per kilowatt hour, according to a major new study by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The 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. Titled "The Economics of Nuclear Reactors," Cooper's 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 reactors had to be abandoned or cancelled due to massive cost overruns.

Nuclear energy sounds like the answer to this country's energy problems, but it isn't. For decades, nuclear power has been peddled as being an efficient and inexpensive energy. In the '50s, nuclear advocates loudly promised the world that atomic power would provide electricity "too cheap to meter." That promise dissolved with the reality of reactor construction costs in the 1970s and 1980s. But the price to consumers isn't limited to just the cost of the power usage that is listed on your monthly electricity bill. It goes way beyond that. Nuclear power is not cheap. Since the very beginning the government has been heaping subsidies, which come from our tax dollars, into the building and running of nuclear plants. But these cash payments and tax breaks are not the most valuable subsidies that they receive. The most important subsidies that the investors and owners can receive come from shifting the risks onto the taxpayers or the surrounding area's population.

Nuclear energy sounds like the answer to this country's energy problems, but it isn't. For decades, nuclear power has been peddled as being an efficient and inexpensive energy. In the '50s, nuclear advocates loudly promised the world that atomic power would provide electricity "too cheap to meter." That promise dissolved with the reality of reactor construction costs in the 1970s and 1980s. But the price to consumers isn't limited to just the cost of the power usage that is listed on your monthly electricity bill. It goes way beyond that. Nuclear power is not cheap. Since the very beginning the government has been heaping subsidies, which come from our tax dollars, into the building and running of nuclear plants. But these cash payments and tax breaks are not the most valuable subsidies that they receive. The most important subsidies that the investors and owners can receive come from shifting the risks onto the taxpayers or the surrounding area's population.

The United States and Italy on Tuesday signed a nuclear cooperation deal that would enlist U.S. companies to help build a string of nuclear power stations across Italy, ending a 22-year ban by the Italian government. "Italy is restarting its nuclear energy again," U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu told reporters. "It has aggressive goals, very admirable goals, in decreasing its carbon emissions through nuclear, through renewable energy, through improvements and efficiency." Chu said companies like General Electric (GE.N) and Toshiba Corp (6502.T) unit Westinghouse will be able to bid on projects in Italy, which hopes to issue in mid-February criteria that would determine the location of the facilities.

The United States and Italy on Tuesday signed a nuclear cooperation deal that would enlist U.S. companies to help build a string of nuclear power stations across Italy, ending a 22-year ban by the Italian government. "Italy is restarting its nuclear energy again," U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu told reporters. "It has aggressive goals, very admirable goals, in decreasing its carbon emissions through nuclear, through renewable energy, through improvements and efficiency." Chu said companies like General Electric (GE.N) and Toshiba Corp (6502.T) unit Westinghouse will be able to bid on projects in Italy, which hopes to issue in mid-February criteria that would determine the location of the facilities.

The Government is considering fresh tax breaks for Britain's nuclear power industry that could smooth the way for the construction of a new generation of UK reactors, The Times has learnt. Whitehall insiders have told The Times that officials at the Department for Energy and Climate Change have been studying the possibility of an exemption for nuclear electricity from the climate change levy, a tax on industrial energy consumption that was created to boost energy efficiency. The levy, which was introduced in 2001, raises an estimated £1 billion a year for the Treasury. Suppliers pay the levy on electricity provided to businesses to Customs & Excise and then pass on the costs to customers.

The Government is considering fresh tax breaks for Britain's nuclear power industry that could smooth the way for the construction of a new generation of UK reactors, The Times has learnt. Whitehall insiders have told The Times that officials at the Department for Energy and Climate Change have been studying the possibility of an exemption for nuclear electricity from the climate change levy, a tax on industrial energy consumption that was created to boost energy efficiency. The levy, which was introduced in 2001, raises an estimated £1 billion a year for the Treasury. Suppliers pay the levy on electricity provided to businesses to Customs & Excise and then pass on the costs to customers.

The reaction from safe-energy advocates is mixed to the proposed appointment of Steven Chu as U.S. energy secretary by President-Elect Barak Obama. Mixed is a charitable response to the prospects of Chu being in charge of the U.S. Department of Energy. Although he has a keen interest in energy efficiency and solar power and other clean forms of renewable energy, Chu is a staunch advocate of nuclear power. "Nuclear has to be a necessary part of the portfolio," declared Chu, the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, at an economic gathering last March in Palo Alto, California organized by Stanford University." http://news.cnet.com/8301-10787_3-9888608-60.html

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.