Group items tagged

The Forum was created by the European Commission in 2007. It represents a unique platform for a broad discussion within European Union on all nuclear energy issues. It gathers all relevant stakeholders in the nuclear field: Governments, European Institutions (Commission, European Parliament, European Economic and Social Committee), academics, nuclear industry- electricity consumers and vendors- and representatives of the civil society

"Nuclear energy offers the best relative economical performance compared to other sources of energy when used for base load electricity generation. It contributes to the EU’s security of supply, emitting practically no greenhouse gases and thus combating climate change."

Three working groups are dedicated to respectively: opportunities, risks transparency issues. The first one is chaired by Jean-Pol Poncelet, AREVA, Senior Vice President, Sustainable development. On his initiative, a group headed by Didier Beutier, AREVA, Deputy Vice president, Marketing, analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of nuclear energy today and at 2020 based on, economical as well as environmental and social performance indicators.

The survey covers the whole life cycle of nuclear energy and alternative energy technologies, limited to plants in operation or commercially deployed in the near future. It includes views and knowledge of different stakeholders: Industry (consumers and vendors), Associations, Member States, and Academics. It represents the first part of a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats), strategic analysis. The second part to be completed by 2011 and will be based on energy scenarios timeline 2030-2050.

The scope of the ENEF work encompassing the three dimensions of sustainability and the diversified background of its contributors make that report a real reference survey for discussing the attractiveness of nuclear power in Europe on its way to a more sustainable, less carbon intensive and secure electricity production

Outside Europe, some developing nations like India and China remain committed to nuclear power, while others are giving it more scrutiny. Chile was expected to sign a memorandum of understanding with the U.S. on nuclear power next week, but the Chilean energy minister indicated the country is reconsidering whether it will use the technology.

The Tea Association of the US's chairman said, "There's nothing in the world like green tea from Japan. If we upload the data [that the governor has given us] to our homepage, the sale of green tea will be back to normal."

Answers to the question of what's wrong with the governor's statement:1. Shizuoka is far away from Fukushima, so what? That does not change the fact that radioactive materials have been falling in Shizuoka since the Fukushima blowup, and hasn't stopped at the prefectural border (although initially some people in Shizuoka actually claimed that the Hakone Mountains blocked the radiation).2. The statement that "the levels of radioactive cesium were below the safety limit" is plain wrong. French authorities confiscated the green tea grown and processed in Shizuoka Prefecture when that tea tested over 1000 becquerels/kg of radioactive cesium, twice the loose safety limit of Japan and the EU. Also, the tea from Warashina District tested higher than the 500 becquerels/kg limit, which was first discovered by Radish Boya, an online grocer in Tokyo.

3. Standard? What standard? The radiation safety limit for food in the US is 170 becquerels/kg. Of all teas from Shizuoka's tea growing regions, only 4 would be considered safe, being below 170 becquerels/kg. The data is right there in the Shizuoka prefectural government website.

If the governor tries to get away by saying the radioactive materials in the brewed tea in a teacup tested below the safety limit, that's also wrong. The Shizuoka government website also has that data, which shows between 1.6 and 14 becquerels/kg of radioactive cesium. Since it is water that is used to brew the tea, we can translate this as having 1.6 to 14 becquerels/liter of radioactive cesium. It sure clears the Japan's extremely loose standard after Fukushima, which is 200 becquerels/liter.

However, the US standard for drinks is 0.11 becquerels/liter. None of the Shizuoka tea, even when brewed, would pass the safety standard of the US. Several would fail the WHO standard, which is 10 becquerels/liter.Maybe the Tea Association chairman didn't know about the standards in the US. Or maybe the strict standards have been modified quietly in the US just like the EU did.

And if you are looking fifty years ahead, fossil fuel will only become more expensive. Competing against oil is much more fun with prices at over $100 a barrel right now than at the $17 to 19 in 2008 dollars a barrel cost in 1960, when OPEC was founded.

The business case for solar and wind energy will always include the fact that fuel is free. The importance of that fact varies with the cost of fossil fuels, even when not factoring in the costs of global warming. Another quote from the interview:

The target of the EU is to see the electricity sector almost completely decarbonised by 2050. Is that achievable? 2050 is a good time span, assuming that technology will continue to improve. Today we at Enel deliver 48% of our power carbon-free. We need technological development to do away with the other 52%. This could be through renewables, but also carbon capture and storage. There will be countries that will still depend on coal and gas, so we cannot rule out CCS. We are working on CCS, it’s there, but you have to prove you can do it economically. We have 40 years for the whole development towards carbon-free electricity generation. We undertook that commitment and I am sticking to it.

The recent Safety at Sellafield conference in Drogheda heard that the greatest risk to Irish people from a disaster at Sellafield would be of long-term cancers.

On October 22, an EU report commissioned before September 11 identified a risk of sabotage and claimed the UK authorities have not complied with the responsibilities outlined in the Euratom Treaty: that some emissions from the plant have caused radiation doses in excess of the recommended EU levels and that the European Commission has never effectively used its rights to inspect the plant.

Leo Drollas, director and chief economist at the London-based Center for Global Energy Studies, believes closing the strait could affect about 16 percent of global crude oil shipments. "The fallout would obviously hit the prices straight away in the future markets," Drollas stated. "Oil prices would rocket because of the fears of what might happen."

But Drollas believes the spike would be temporary as the countries adjust and the West taps into its reserves.

For his part, Stevens of Chatham House doubts Iran will go through with its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz - in part because it relies on the waterway for its own oil exports

Enter Rostam Ghasemi. While that might not be breaking news to some, the appointment of Ghasemi (who was also Iran’s Revolutionary Guard’s chief) as OPEC’s new president is sure to rock the boat

It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that Ghasemi might spill the beans as to what Saudi Arabia’s actual crude oil reserves are, hence sending the energy-hungry West into damage-control.

Ghasemi is currently subject to US, EU and Australian sanctions and his assets have been blacklisted by US Treasury and western powers. After all, this man belongs to the wing of the Iranian military which threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if Iran is threatened by a foreign power (ie. Israel or the United States). It’s worthwhile to note that 40% of the world’s oil is shipped through that strait. Heres the kicker. Most of that oil comes from Saudi Arabia. War or no war, it seems that supplies are going to dry up regardless due to increased domestic consumption levels. Just last year alone, the Saudi’s consumed more than 2.4 million barrels of oil a day. That’s a 50% increase just within the last seven years. Yep, it’s going fast.

The greater emphasis on nuclear energy in the Czech economy is substantiated. The Czech Republic is not and never will be an oil power and dependence on external sources is bad as any other dependence, Hrstkova writes.

She add that it should be noted, however, that nuclear fuel must also be imported.