Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

The National Science Board is seeking public comment on a draft report, "Building a Sustainable Energy Future," released this week. Comments are being accepted through May 1, according to info released to the news media. Comments made be made to NSBenergy@nsf.gov. The National Science Board is the policymaking body for the National Science Foundation and advises the President and Congress on science and engineering issues. The new report recommends a strategy to move from an energy economy dependent on fossil fuels to one that "thrives on Sustainable and clean energy."

The solution according to members of CAUSE is sustainable energy in these three alternatives: wind, solar and geothermal. CAUSE totally supports other alternative forms of energy generation as stated in the Pembina Institute's Greening the Grid, Powering Alberta's Future with Renewable Energy. The informative piece can be found at: http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/greeningthegrid-report.pdf. Rather than follow the global agenda, Alberta and Canada have these options in Greening the Grid available to them and can use them in a big way. The question as to why global leaders are turning back the clock to reinvigorate a 50 year-old industry plagued with safety and cost issues is bewildering. They want a quick fix solution as a way to resolve the carbon emissions problem but Schacherl disputes this fact. "Nuclear is not emission free and it is definitely not a 'quick fix solution.' It takes a minimum of 10 years for a nuclear reactor to be approved and built and likely longer." As global leaders pour money into this 50 year-old problem-plagued industry, money needed for research and development for cleaner, safer energy alternatives, will be taken away.

The solution according to members of CAUSE is sustainable energy in these three alternatives: wind, solar and geothermal. CAUSE totally supports other alternative forms of energy generation as stated in the Pembina Institute's Greening the Grid, Powering Alberta's Future with Renewable Energy. The informative piece can be found at: http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/greeningthegrid-report.pdf. Rather than follow the global agenda, Alberta and Canada have these options in Greening the Grid available to them and can use them in a big way. The question as to why global leaders are turning back the clock to reinvigorate a 50 year-old industry plagued with safety and cost issues is bewildering. They want a quick fix solution as a way to resolve the carbon emissions problem but Schacherl disputes this fact. "Nuclear is not emission free and it is definitely not a 'quick fix solution.' It takes a minimum of 10 years for a nuclear reactor to be approved and built and likely longer." As global leaders pour money into this 50 year-old problem-plagued industry, money needed for research and development for cleaner, safer energy alternatives, will be taken away.

Elena Schacherl initiated the grassroots organization Citizens Advocating the Use of Sustainable Energy (CAUSE) in January 2007. Many of the people who are members of CAUSE come from diverse backgrounds. The announcement of possible plans for extensive nuclear development in Alberta by a company at the time called Energy Alberta Corporation was the inspiration behind its formation. The Alberta Environmental Network circulated the notice of the first meeting according to Schacherl. "Our mandate is to oppose nuclear development in Alberta by educating the public about the safety, environmental, health and economic risks of nuclear power. We support energy efficiency and renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal as safer, less expensive and more environmentally friendly means of conserving and generating electricity," explains Schacherl.

Elena Schacherl initiated the grassroots organization Citizens Advocating the Use of Sustainable Energy (CAUSE) in January 2007. Many of the people who are members of CAUSE come from diverse backgrounds. The announcement of possible plans for extensive nuclear development in Alberta by a company at the time called Energy Alberta Corporation was the inspiration behind its formation. The Alberta Environmental Network circulated the notice of the first meeting according to Schacherl. "Our mandate is to oppose nuclear development in Alberta by educating the public about the safety, environmental, health and economic risks of nuclear power. We support energy efficiency and renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal as safer, less expensive and more environmentally friendly means of conserving and generating electricity," explains Schacherl.

"The coalition government will reconsider the nation's nuclear power plans, it said Thursday, surprising the nuclear industry, but added targets for first power generation by 2018 remain intact. The nuclear plan issued by the previous Labour government was widely consulted on by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, but the new coalition government says it wants to look at it again in the autumn to see if it is sustainable. "We have decided to take a further look at the Appraisal of Sustainability of our draft Energy Policy Statements to make sure that they are fit for purpose," Energy Minister Charles Hendry said in a statement Thursday."

Did you know that the Ontario government intends to sign a contract worth more than $26 billion for the building of two new reactors at the Darlington nuclear station? This project alone will cost more than the Ontario Power Authority has budgeted for its entire nuclear program for the next 20 years. Spending $26 billion on this project will mean there is less government money for grants to find sustainable ways to get the power we need for Ontario's residents. sustainable energy sources that are better, cheaper and cleaner than nuclear energy. We can keep the lights on in Ontario without going further into debt by feeding the nuclear vampire.

Your report on the gross energy inefficiency of the government estate (Government buildings emit more CO2 than all of Kenya, 23 December) should come as no surprise to anyone who has watched the obsession by energy and climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, to make nuclear power a "solution" to our greenhouse gas emissions requirement. Even if new nuclear plants were to replace the entire "fleet" of current reactors, it would save at most 2-3% of our carbon emissions. But this obsession has diverted attention and investment from much more sustainable and effective ways of delivering the massive cuts in carbon that will be required. Last week, the government's own environmental watchdog, the sustainable Development Commission, revealed that departments had overall seen their use of renewable electricity fall to 22% in 2007-08, down from 28% the previous year.

The nuclear myth of the 1950s and '60s was atomic power would be "too cheap to meter." That didn't pan out, so the nuclear industry is spinning a new mythology, also designed to win popular support. At a meeting of the Regina Chamber of Commerce last week, Hugh MacDiarmid, president and CEO of Atomic Energy of Canada, described nuclear power as "environmentally sustainable." At the same time, Premier Brad Wall stated that Saskatchewan would not proceed with the nuclear option "unless we can demonstrate, obviously, environmental sustainability."

IAEA Leads Collaborative Project on Nuclear Technology Member States have been briefed on an IAEA project that helps nations chart their way forward in choosing innovative technologies when developing sustainable nuclear energy. The International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) brings together technology holders and users so that they can consider jointly the international and national actions required to achieve the desired innovation in nuclear reactors and fuel cycles. Yury Sokolov, IAEA Deputy Director General of Nuclear Energy and INPRO Project Manager, opened the meeting by introducing the scope and goal of the project.

"The future of nuclear energy will have stiff competition with competing green renewable and future novel technologies that have a higher approval rating with the public. There is an especially strong grassroots pro sustainable movement in Calgary that doesn't involve the nuclear energy equation. The question whether the public's disapproval of nuclear energy will force governments that are part of the GNEP to reconsider is likely not a scenario that will come to fruition. With an increasingly energy hungry world, it looks as if nuclear power is here to stay on a local and global level. In time, engineers and scientists may solve the nuclear waste issue and come up with new ways to appease the skeptics who are pro sustainable energy that doesn't involve nuclear. "

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 beginnings of the Manhattan Project can be traced to early science and technology research into uranium-238 conducted at the University of California, Berkeley. U-238 is the most common radioactive element, making up about 99 percent of the Earth's supply of uranium. Uranium-238 does not sustain a fission chain reaction, however, and must be modified into an isotope that can. It can be bombarded in a nuclear reactor to make U-235, the fuel used for the Hiroshima bomb. That isotope was made and separated at labs in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

The beginnings of the Manhattan Project can be traced to early science and technology research into uranium-238 conducted at the University of California, Berkeley. U-238 is the most common radioactive element, making up about 99 percent of the Earth's supply of uranium. Uranium-238 does not sustain a fission chain reaction, however, and must be modified into an isotope that can. It can be bombarded in a nuclear reactor to make U-235, the fuel used for the Hiroshima bomb. That isotope was made and separated at labs in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

The nuclear debate once again risks becoming simply caught up in the pros and cons of nuclear technology itself, missing the vital point that, in Australia, we have a host of safe, environmentally sustainable, economically viable alternatives to reduce our carbon emissions. Given that renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions can be deployed now, at a scale and volume large enough to make a sizable dent in greenhouse gas emissions, reopening the conversation around nuclear is surely a debate and a distraction we don't need.

The nuclear debate once again risks becoming simply caught up in the pros and cons of nuclear technology itself, missing the vital point that, in Australia, we have a host of safe, environmentally sustainable, economically viable alternatives to reduce our carbon emissions. Given that renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions can be deployed now, at a scale and volume large enough to make a sizable dent in greenhouse gas emissions, reopening the conversation around nuclear is surely a debate and a distraction we don't need.

- Highlighting recent progress in efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon Tuesday urged nations to build on the momentum, laying out a number of steps to move the process forward. Speaking at a meeting in New York focusing on his five-point action plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons, the secretary-general cited "encouraging" developments over recent months, including the renewed commitment by the leaders of the United States and Russia, a breakthrough in the Conference on Disarmament, and the "historic" Security Council summit in September. "We need to sustain this momentum, and build on it," he stated, noting that the review conference for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to be held in May 2010, is just a few months away. "Now is the time." The secretary-general's action plan, presented in October 2008,begins with a call for the parties to the NPT to pursue negotiations on nuclear disarmament, either through a new convention or through a series of mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a credible system of verification.

- Highlighting recent progress in efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon Tuesday urged nations to build on the momentum, laying out a number of steps to move the process forward. Speaking at a meeting in New York focusing on his five-point action plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons, the secretary-general cited "encouraging" developments over recent months, including the renewed commitment by the leaders of the United States and Russia, a breakthrough in the Conference on Disarmament, and the "historic" Security Council summit in September. "We need to sustain this momentum, and build on it," he stated, noting that the review conference for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to be held in May 2010, is just a few months away. "Now is the time." The secretary-general's action plan, presented in October 2008,begins with a call for the parties to the NPT to pursue negotiations on nuclear disarmament, either through a new convention or through a series of mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a credible system of verification.

As the threat of nuclear weapons looms large over the very existence of life on earth, Dr Sue Wareham, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons' (ICAN) Australian board member, is calling for a speedy abolition of these weapons and the rejection of nuclear power as a solution to climate change. Speaking at the sessions on nuclear abolition and disarmament at the 2009 Parliament of the World's Religions here, Wareham said the power of religion should be harnessed to bring peace in the world through disarmament, abolition of nuclear weapons, eradication of poverty and action on climate change. The six-day Parliament, which ends on Dec 9, is a gathering of religious and spiritual communities from different parts of the world to discuss issues relating to peace, diversity and sustainability.

As the threat of nuclear weapons looms large over the very existence of life on earth, Dr Sue Wareham, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons' (ICAN) Australian board member, is calling for a speedy abolition of these weapons and the rejection of nuclear power as a solution to climate change. Speaking at the sessions on nuclear abolition and disarmament at the 2009 Parliament of the World's Religions here, Wareham said the power of religion should be harnessed to bring peace in the world through disarmament, abolition of nuclear weapons, eradication of poverty and action on climate change. The six-day Parliament, which ends on Dec 9, is a gathering of religious and spiritual communities from different parts of the world to discuss issues relating to peace, diversity and sustainability.

An expert panel is recommending that the federal government build a new nuclear reactor to produce medical isotopes and guarantee an adequate supply for the country. The Expert Review Panel On Medical Isotope Production says the best way to keep isotopes stocked is to build a new research reactor to replace the downed unit at Chalk River, Ont. It makes the recommendation in a report to Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt, which the government received Monday and released Thursday. "We recommend that the government expeditiously engage in the replacement of the (National Research Universal) reactor as we believe a multipurpose research reactor represents the best primary option to create a sustainable source of (the isotope molybdenum 99), recognizing that the reactor's other missions would also play a role in justifying the costs," the report says.

An expert panel is recommending that the federal government build a new nuclear reactor to produce medical isotopes and guarantee an adequate supply for the country. The Expert Review Panel On Medical Isotope Production says the best way to keep isotopes stocked is to build a new research reactor to replace the downed unit at Chalk River, Ont. It makes the recommendation in a report to Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt, which the government received Monday and released Thursday. "We recommend that the government expeditiously engage in the replacement of the (National Research Universal) reactor as we believe a multipurpose research reactor represents the best primary option to create a sustainable source of (the isotope molybdenum 99), recognizing that the reactor's other missions would also play a role in justifying the costs," the report says.

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."

In late 2009 Indonesia revived a proposal to build a nuclear power facility on the seismically active Muria Peninsula of north central Java over sustained civil society opposition including the voice of moderate Islam. The following assessment by Richard Tanter, Arabella Imhoff and David Von Hippel poses a range of issues about siting decisions in light of state-society relations and nuclear power feasibility. The issues are as relevant to mature democracies as to "emerging democracies," as Indonesia is now sometimes styled. Muria poses formidable challenges to Indonesian democracy while posing equally important questions about the nation's developmental trajectory. The siting of airports, dams, and nuclear power plants, are all examples of major siting decisions and contestations. As Daniel Aldrich observes in Site fights: Divisive Facilities and Civil Society in Japan and the West (Cornell University Press, 2008), even within democracies, some targeted communities have low potential for resistance. More generally, he terms siting decisions targeting vulnerable social elements, as "public bads," as opposed to "public goods," the latter conferring public benefits. Rather than neutral technocratic grounds, he shows, official frequently single out localities with weak civil societies for controversial siting decisions. Moreover, coercive measures are frequently employed, as opposed to incentive packages such as those frequently cited in the NIMBY literature. Only intense societal resistance obliges the state to adopt soft solutions.

In late 2009 Indonesia revived a proposal to build a nuclear power facility on the seismically active Muria Peninsula of north central Java over sustained civil society opposition including the voice of moderate Islam. The following assessment by Richard Tanter, Arabella Imhoff and David Von Hippel poses a range of issues about siting decisions in light of state-society relations and nuclear power feasibility. The issues are as relevant to mature democracies as to "emerging democracies," as Indonesia is now sometimes styled. Muria poses formidable challenges to Indonesian democracy while posing equally important questions about the nation's developmental trajectory. The siting of airports, dams, and nuclear power plants, are all examples of major siting decisions and contestations. As Daniel Aldrich observes in Site fights: Divisive Facilities and Civil Society in Japan and the West (Cornell University Press, 2008), even within democracies, some targeted communities have low potential for resistance. More generally, he terms siting decisions targeting vulnerable social elements, as "public bads," as opposed to "public goods," the latter conferring public benefits. Rather than neutral technocratic grounds, he shows, official frequently single out localities with weak civil societies for controversial siting decisions. Moreover, coercive measures are frequently employed, as opposed to incentive packages such as those frequently cited in the NIMBY literature. Only intense societal resistance obliges the state to adopt soft solutions.

The Legacy of Nuclear Energy, Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Upon US Indigenous & Communities of Color We are communities that, in partnership with the Peace Development Fund, form the Building Action for Sustainable Environments Initiative (BASE). We are citizens who represent some of the communities in the US who bear the legacy of 50 years of nuclear energy and weapons production. We are indigenous nations, we are Latino citizens and farm-workers, and we are African American communities living near nuclear power and weapon production sites. Reducing and eliminating the wasteful and dangerous means of producing nuclear energy and bringing renewable green energy production and jobs to our communities are the goals in which our communities have a major stake. Our communities suffer from diseases and illnesses that we contend are related to our exposure to the highly toxic processes of mining and milling uranium, the unsafe storage of radioactive materials and the lack of clean-up of sites and facilities, the transportation of highly radioactive waste through our communities, and the lack of safe disposal methods for highly deadly nuclear waste. Cancer, neurological damage, genetic damage, lung disease, respiratory disorders, lupus, and heart problems are among some of the illnesses that affect our communities.

The Legacy of Nuclear Energy, Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Upon US Indigenous & Communities of Color We are communities that, in partnership with the Peace Development Fund, form the Building Action for Sustainable Environments Initiative (BASE). We are citizens who represent some of the communities in the US who bear the legacy of 50 years of nuclear energy and weapons production. We are indigenous nations, we are Latino citizens and farm-workers, and we are African American communities living near nuclear power and weapon production sites. Reducing and eliminating the wasteful and dangerous means of producing nuclear energy and bringing renewable green energy production and jobs to our communities are the goals in which our communities have a major stake. Our communities suffer from diseases and illnesses that we contend are related to our exposure to the highly toxic processes of mining and milling uranium, the unsafe storage of radioactive materials and the lack of clean-up of sites and facilities, the transportation of highly radioactive waste through our communities, and the lack of safe disposal methods for highly deadly nuclear waste. Cancer, neurological damage, genetic damage, lung disease, respiratory disorders, lupus, and heart problems are among some of the illnesses that affect our communities.

Haunted by the goblins of the cold war, a Boise-based group is obsessed with a uranium enrichment plant GargoyleA relic with knee-jerk, anti-nuclear reflexes from the cold war has energized itself to oppose Areva's planned $2.4 billion "Eagle Rock" uranium enrichment plant in Idaho. The Boise-based Snake River Alliance (SRA) has a war chest of $300,000 from the Bullit and the Edwards Mother Earth foundations and Patagonia outdoor clothing. With a staff of five and a claim of 1,000 members, it is planning to mount a major campaign to drive Areva out of Idaho. The French nuclear energy firm announced plans in May 2008 to build a $2.4 billion uranium enrichment plant in eastern Idaho 18 miles west of Idaho Falls, ID. Areva chose the site after a yearlong nationwide search, with intense competition among five finalist sites, and only after the Idaho legislature offered tax incentives to sweeten the winning deal. Idaho Falls is one of the nation's most pro-nuclear cities with a sustained track record of standing up for Areva's project.

Haunted by the goblins of the cold war, a Boise-based group is obsessed with a uranium enrichment plant GargoyleA relic with knee-jerk, anti-nuclear reflexes from the cold war has energized itself to oppose Areva's planned $2.4 billion "Eagle Rock" uranium enrichment plant in Idaho. The Boise-based Snake River Alliance (SRA) has a war chest of $300,000 from the Bullit and the Edwards Mother Earth foundations and Patagonia outdoor clothing. With a staff of five and a claim of 1,000 members, it is planning to mount a major campaign to drive Areva out of Idaho. The French nuclear energy firm announced plans in May 2008 to build a $2.4 billion uranium enrichment plant in eastern Idaho 18 miles west of Idaho Falls, ID. Areva chose the site after a yearlong nationwide search, with intense competition among five finalist sites, and only after the Idaho legislature offered tax incentives to sweeten the winning deal. Idaho Falls is one of the nation's most pro-nuclear cities with a sustained track record of standing up for Areva's project.

The government will sell off a raft of state assets, Prime Minister Gordon Brown was to say Monday as he bids to reclaim the initiative on reducing recession-hit Britain's debt. The government is to sell off 16 billion pounds (25.4 billion dollars) of assets, Brown was to say, according to extracts from a keynote speech to be given in London, setting out his vision for "enduring and sustainable growth." Brown was to outline details of initial sales that could raise three billion pounds, including the Channel Tunnel; the 33 percent stake in European uranium corsortium URENCO; the Tote bookmakers; the River Thames crossings at Dartford, east of London; and the Student Loans Company. The country is still in recession and has a forecast deficit this year of 175 billion pounds.

The government will sell off a raft of state assets, Prime Minister Gordon Brown was to say Monday as he bids to reclaim the initiative on reducing recession-hit Britain's debt. The government is to sell off 16 billion pounds (25.4 billion dollars) of assets, Brown was to say, according to extracts from a keynote speech to be given in London, setting out his vision for "enduring and sustainable growth." Brown was to outline details of initial sales that could raise three billion pounds, including the Channel Tunnel; the 33 percent stake in European uranium corsortium URENCO; the Tote bookmakers; the River Thames crossings at Dartford, east of London; and the Student Loans Company. The country is still in recession and has a forecast deficit this year of 175 billion pounds.