Skip to main content

Home/ Open Intelligence / Energy/ Group items tagged exploration

Rss Feed Group items tagged

D'coda Dcoda

American Energy Fields - Three Projects in Early Stage Uranium Exploration [08Jul11] - 0 views

  • American Energy Fields, Inc. (OTCBB:AEFI), formerly Sienna Resources, Inc. is a uranium exploration and development company based in Arizona. Their focus is uranium deposits in the United States. The Company’s three main projects (in which they have sole interest) are  the Coso and Blythe  projects in California, and Artillery Peak project in Arizona. All three properties have been previously explored and developed, and are currently in early exploration stages.  A 43-101 technical report for the Artillery Peak project is available for review on American Energy Field’s website. What we like about American Energy Fields, Inc: Over 9.2 million pounds U3O8 historic resources with 2.8 million pounds 43-101 verified More than $25 million in development work, by past operators, has been spent on AEFI’s current projects Committed to near term production of low cost U.S. Uranium
  • The Artillery Peak property consists of 1,777 acres of federal land and is located 112 miles northeast of Phoenix, Arizona. American Energy Fields’ historic records indicate 1.7 million pounds of uranium was previously identified through exploration on Artillery Peak. There has been significant exploration work completed on the property, including over 400 holes drilled by Jacquays Mining, Homestake Mining, Hecla Mining, Getty Oil, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, and Santa Fe Mining between the 1950s-1970s. A 1979 report by Central and South West Fuels, Inc. found that the northern portion of the property contains a historical resource of 1.7 million pounds U3O8 with an average grade of 0.113%. In 2007/2008 new exploration was conducted which included 34 additional drill holes to verify historic drilling and further delineate mineralization. In 1979, the Department of Energy conducted an evaluation of the Date Creek Basin and the Artillery Mountains where they estimated that the area could contain as much as 1,260,000,000 pounds of U3O8. The Company will begin a preliminary exploration program to verify the historic data reported by Central and South West Fuels Inc.
  • Coso – Inyo County – California The Coso project covers 169 federal mining claims and 800 state-owned acres and was previously developed by Western Nuclear, Pioneer Resources, Federal Resources, and Union Pacific Mining/Rocky Mountain Energy. An estimated U.S. $20,000,000.00 was spent on exploration and development of the project, including an engineered pit design, where exploration records indicate 5.5 million lbs. of uranium was identified with an average grade of 0.07 U3O8. American Energy Fields recently received its exploration permit for the 800 state-owned acres from the California Land Department and is currently developing an exploration plan to confirm the historic data with the goal of moving the project towards production. Blythe – Riverside County – California The Blythe project consists of 66 Federal mining claims in Riverside County, California covering 3 historic mines, the Safranek, the McCoy Wash, and the Little Ore Hill operated by Humbug Mining and Bokum Corporation. According to Bokum’s records during the years of 1963 to 1964, the Safranek Mine produced and shipped 1,400 tons of uranium ore averaging 0.80% U308 to the VCA mill in Salt Lake City, Utah for processing. These records also indicate the Safranek site currently contains 100 tons at 0.40% U3O8 and 4,000 tons at 0.30% U3O8 of stockpiled ore, while the McCoy Wash has 3,000 tons of stockpiled ore with a grade of 0.20% U3O8. Bokum Corporation drilled the property in the early 1970s and the results indicated approximately 153,000 lbs of U3O8 while outlining a further potential for an additional 2,000,000 lbs of U3O8. American Energy Fields aims to identify, expand, and develop the ore body with the goal of putting the past producing mines back into production. Management
D'coda Dcoda

Uranium Deals Prove Most Lucrative as Nuclear Demand Increases: Real M&A [25Oct11] - 0 views

  • Uranium takeovers are offering investors the biggest potential payoffs, less than a year after the partial meltdown of Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant. Hathor Exploration Ltd. (HAT), the owner of a uranium deposit in northern Saskatchewan, yesterday traded 8.4 percent above a bid from Rio Tinto Group that topped an offer from Cameco Corp. (CCO) That signals investors are now betting Hathor will extract the biggest price hike of any pending North American deal greater than $500 million, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Kalahari Minerals Plc (KAH), which resumed talks with China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group after a takeover was derailed by Japan’s disaster, would now hand shareholders a higher return than the pre-Fukushima agreement, even with a 5 percent lower offer.
  • Hathor slipped 0.2 percent to C$4.49 in Toronto today, while Cameco fell 0.2 percent to C$20.88. Rio Tinto retreated 2.1 percent to 3,302.5 pence in London. Cameco, the world’s biggest uranium producer, took its takeover offer for Hathor directly to shareholders after the companies couldn’t agree on a price. The proposal would give Hathor’s shareholders C$3.75 a share in cash, valuing the uranium explorer at C$520 million ($530 million), according to the Aug. 26 statement.
  • After investors pushed the stock as much as 12 percent above Cameco’s offer, Rio Tinto, the world’s second-largest mining company, trumped the proposal last week. Rio Tinto’s bid valued Hathor at C$4.15 a share in cash, or C$578 million, according to the Oct. 19 statement.
D'coda Dcoda

The Radiation Database User Guide - Worldwide HAARP, VLF, Radar, & [24Apr12]] - 0 views

  •  
    The Radiation Database KML is now called "ClimateViewer 3D": http://climateviewer.com/ The Radiation Database began as a Keyhole Markup Language (KML) project, geolocating Weather Modification projects and devices that may be able to alter the weather. The project quickly grew, expanding to cover many areas of interest/concern. Exploring the RadDB will not only expand your knowledge of our planet, but broaden your awareness of the current state of electromagnetics. This database contains data overlays, images, and links reguarding nuclear test/power/storage, radio frequency antenna (like HAARP), radar, and laser locations all around the globe, as well as climate/real-time data. While focusing on the military-industrial complex, the database covers locations and data ranging from Star Wars to Climate Gate. It's what you get when you mix George Jetson with Google Earth.
D'coda Dcoda

What do you do with the waste? - Kirk Sorensen's answers [13Oct11] - 0 views

  • What do you do with the waste? – Kirk Sorensen’s answers by Rod Adams on October 13, 2011 in Fuel Recycling , Nuclear Batteries , Nuclear Waste , Plutonium , Thorium Share3   Gordon McDowell, the film maker who produced Thorium Remix , has released some additional mixes of material gathered for that production effort. One in particular is aimed at those people whose main concern about using nuclear energy is the often repeated question “What do you do with the waste.” Many people who ask that question think that it is a trump card that should end all conversation and let them win the hand. I used to play bridge and enjoyed it when I could “no trump” a smug contestant who thought he had a winner. Kirk’s discussion below is one example of how that can be done in the nuclear energy field . My friends who like the Integral Fast Reactor have another answer . I am pretty certain there are dozens of other good answers to the question – the primary obstacle to implementing them comes from the nefarious forces that LIKE raising (artificial) barriers to the use of nuclear energy. On another note, I want to point to a story published in the evening of October 12, 2011 on the Wall Street Journal web site titled WSJ: Fluor Buys Stake In Reactor Maker NuScale Energy . I am happy to see that NuScale has found a suitable, deep pockets investor with a lot of nuclear plant engineering and construction experience. One more short note. Jay Hancock, a writer for the Baltimore Sun, has taken note of some of the work published on Atomic Insights regarding Exelon’s decision to destroy the Zion Nuclear power station rather than allowing it to compete against existing power plants to increase the supply and decrease the price of electricity. On October 8, 2011, Hancock published a column titled State should pull plug on Constellation-Exelon deal that explored whether or not it would be beneficial for Marylanders to allow a company like Exelon to own a dominant number of electrical power generation facilities in the state. One of the pieces of evidence that has convinced Hancock to oppose the proposed merger is the way that Exelon has acted with regard to the Zion nuclear station. He recognizes that the company has adequately demonstrated a history of using market power to drive up prices and profits at the expense of customer interests. Additional reading related to Exelon bear hug attempt: EDF Asks Maryland Regulators To Block Exelon-Constellation Merger
  • What do you do with the waste? – Kirk Sorensen’s answers by Rod Adams on October 13, 2011 in Fuel Recycling, Nuclear Batteries, Nuclear Waste, Plutonium, Thorium Share3  Gordon McDowell, the film maker who produced Thorium Remix , has released some additional mixes of material gathered for that production effort. One in particular is aimed at those people whose main concern about using nuclear energy is the often repeated question “What do you do with the waste.” Many people who ask that question think that it is a trump card that should end all conversation and let them win the hand. I used to play bridge and enjoyed it when I could “no trump” a smug contestant who thought he had a winner. Kirk’s discussion below is one example of how that can be done in the nuclear energy field . My friends who like the Integral Fast Reactor have another answer. I am pretty certain there are dozens of other good answers to the question – the primary obstacle to implementing them comes from the nefarious forces that LIKE raising (artificial) barriers to the use of nuclear energy. On another note, I want to point to a story published in the evening of October 12, 2011 on the Wall Street Journal web site titled WSJ: Fluor Buys Stake In Reactor Maker NuScale Energy. I am happy to see that NuScale has found a suitable, deep pockets investor with a lot of nuclear plant engineering and construction experience. One more short note. Jay Hancock, a writer for the Baltimore Sun, has taken note of some of the work published on Atomic Insights regarding Exelon’s decision to destroy the Zion Nuclear power station rather than allowing it to compete against existing power plants to increase the supply and decrease the price of electricity. On October 8, 2011, Hancock published a column titled State should pull plug on Constellation-Exelon deal that explored whether or not it would be beneficial for Marylanders to allow a company like Exelon to own a dominant number of electrical power generation facilities in the state.
  • Gordon McDowell, the film maker who produced Thorium Remix, has released some additional mixes of material gathered for that production effort. One in particular is aimed at those people whose main concern about using nuclear energy is the often repeated question “What do you do with the waste.” Many people who ask that question think that it is a trump card that should end all conversation and let them win the hand. I used to play bridge and enjoyed it when I could “no trump” a smug contestant who thought he had a winner. Kirk’s discussion below is one example of how that can be done in the nuclear energy field
D'coda Dcoda

5.8 trillion becquerels of strontium leaked from Fukushima over weekend [06Dec11] - 0 views

  • Tepco Press Release, Dec. 5: “At 11:33 am on December 4, workers found that there was puddle water inside the barrier around the evaporative condensation apparatus (estimated volume of water was approx. 45 m3 [1 cubic meter of water = 1 metric ton]).” NHK: “The water is believed to have contained 130,000 becquerels per cubic centimeter of radioactive strontium.” New York Times: “Tepco said a check on Saturday had found no sign of the leak, suggesting that it began Saturday night or early Sunday morning. The company said it was exploring ways to stop any more water from escaping.” 45 metric tons = 45,000 kg = 45,000,000 cubic centimeters * 130,000 becquerels per cubic centimeter of strontium = 5,850,000,000,000 Bq strontium
D'coda Dcoda

Blocking Keystone Won't Stop Oil Sands' Flow Into The U.S. : NPR [18Jan12] - 0 views

  • President Obama is feeling election-year pressure over the pending decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. Republicans say the Canadian project would provide the U.S. with oil and new jobs, but environmentalists want Obama to block it. They say Alberta's oil sands generate more greenhouse gases than other kinds of oil, and Americans must not become dependent on such a dirty source of energy. But it may already be too late to change that.
  • Ben West, an anti-oil tanker activist with a group called the Wilderness Committee, says when the pipeline company Kinder Morgan bought this facility in 2005, it shifted its focus to exports — primarily to the American West Coast. "We've seen this huge increase of tanker traffic," he says. "We went from 22 tankers in 2005, up to 79 [in 2010]. You know these 700,000-barrel tankers that are now coming through the Burrard Inlet, which passes through one of the most populated areas of British Columbia."
  • The pipeline also has a branch that crosses the border, feeding crude oil to refineries in Washington state. Kinder Morgan is now exploring the possibility of doubling the pipeline's capacity. West calls it the "quiet repurposing" of the Trans Mountain Pipeline. And because of it, oil sands gasoline is now fueling cars from Seattle to San Francisco.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Philip Verleger, an economist who specializes in oil markets, says even if environmentalists convince Obama to block the Keystone XL pipeline, it won't stop the growth of production in the Canadian oil sands. "With prices around a hundred dollars a barrel globally, that oil is going to make it to the market somehow," Verleger says. "The development may be slowed for a year or two. But one can move the oil west on the existing Kinder Morgan pipeline. They could expand pipelines east. Those pipelines already exist, and they can be expanded."
D'coda Dcoda

Don't Be Fooled By the Spin - Radiation is Bad [06Apr11] - 0 views

  • Ziggy Switkowski, former chair of ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation) and a proponent of nuclear power for Australia, claimed "the best place to be whenever there's an earthquake is at the perimeter of a nuclear plant because they are designed so well", and then quickly added: "On the other hand, you know, if the engineers do lose control of the core, then the answer becomes different."
  • Strident nuclear advocate Professor Barry Brook gave assurances in his running commentary that seemed ironically prescient of what was about to happen, stating ''I don't see the ramifications of this as damaging at all to nuclear power's prospects'' and that ''it will provide a great conversation starter for talking intelligently to people about nuclear safety''.
  • Other arguments trotted out by pro-nuclearists about how safe nuclear power is demonstrated their chutzpah more than their good judgment. My favourite: the justification for nuclear power is that it kills fewer people than the coal industry. Ignoring the false choice this proposition entails, what does it say about the safety culture of the nuclear industry when one of its selling points is that it kills fewer people than the competition?
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • But more insidious and objectionable is the creeping misinformation that the nuclear industry has fed into the public sphere over the years. There seems to be a never-ending cabal of paid industry scientific ''consultants'' who are more than willing to state the fringe view that low doses of ionising radiation do not cause cancer and, indeed, that low doses are actually good for you and lessen the incidence of cancer. Canadian Dr Doug Boreham has been on numerous sponsored tours of Australia by Toro Energy, a junior uranium explorer, expounding the view that "low-dose radiation is like getting a suntan". Toro must have liked what it heard because it made him a safety consultant for the company in 2009.
  • Ionising radiation is a known carcinogen. This is based on almost 100 years of cumulative research including 60 years of follow-up of the Japanese atom bomb survivors. The International Agency for Research in Cancer (IARC, linked to the World Health Organisation) classifies it as a Class 1 carcinogen, the highest classification indicative of certainty of its carcinogenic effects.
  • In 2006, the US National Academy of Sciences released its Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation (VII) report, which focused on the health effects of radiation doses at below 100 millisieverts. This was a consensus review that assessed the world's scientific literature on the subject at that time. It concluded: ". . . there is a linear dose-response relationship between exposure to ionising radiation and the development of solid cancers in humans. It is unlikely that there is a threshold below which cancers are not induced."
  • The most comprehensive study of nuclear workers by the IARC, involving 600,000 workers exposed to an average cumulative dose of 19mSv, showed a cancer risk consistent with that of the A-bomb survivors
  • April 26 marks the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. The pro-nuclearists have gone into full-spin-ahead mode, misrepresenting the latest UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) report on Chernobyl.
  • Two days ago on this page, George Monbiot (''How the anti-nuclear lobby misled us all with dodgy claims''), citing the report, wrongly plays down he death toll. He correctly states that the report found 6848 cases of thyroid cancer in children, although he fails to acknowledge it was due to the effects of radioactive iodine in the nuclear fallout. The number of cases will continue to increase, according to the US National Cancer Institute, for a further 10 to 20 years.
  • Thyroid cancer is easy to detect because it is normally a rare cancer. Most other cancers caused by radiation are not that easy to detect above the high background natural rates of cancer. It is the proverbial needle in a haystack scenario - but in this case the needles (radiation-induced cancer) look the same as the hay (other cancers). What the report therefore said was that statistical limitations and large uncertainties precluded being able to single out any radiation-induced cancers. It did not say there have been no cancers, as Monbiot and others claim, or that none will develop, only that it is not possible at this stage to detect them.
  • IARC states that ''by 2065, predictions based on these models indicate that about 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident and that about 16,000 deaths from these cancers may occur''. Whether we will be able to detect them when there will also be more than 1 million other cases of cancer over this period is debatable. But every one of these excess cancers is a tragedy for each victim and their family, and is no less so simply because cancer is a common disease. George Monbiot should read properly the BEIR VII report that Helen Caldicott gave him - all 423 pages
D'coda Dcoda

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy's CEO Caroline Reda to Promote Nuclear Energy as Part of US-I... - 0 views

  • GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) president and CEO Caroline Reda is the top U.S. nuclear industry executive participating in a trade mission to India February 6-11. Reda will join U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, who is leading the mission, and senior officials from the Export-Import Bank (EX-IM), the Trade Development Agency (TDA), and executives from almost two dozen other U.S. companies
  • This trade mission seeks to further President Barack Obama’s goal of doubling U.S. exports by 2015, supporting economic growth and creating several million new jobs. In 2010, U.S. exports to India increased to $19.3 billion, a nearly 18 percent increase from 2009’s level of $16.4 billion.
  • The group will be visiting several cities in India, among them New Delhi and Mumbai, in order to explore export opportunities in a broad range of advanced industrial sectors including civil nuclear power generation, trade, defense and security, civil aviation, information and communications technologies.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Reda is participating in her first mission to India since becoming GEH’s CEO in July 2010
  • “Exports are leading the U.S. economic recovery, spurring future economic growth and creating jobs in America,” Locke said when the administration first announced its plans for the trade mission in late 2010. “Increasing trade between the U.S. and India will help drive innovation and create jobs in both countries. As trading partners, U.S. companies can help India meet the ambitious economic and social goals laid out by its government, while the Indian market holds enormous potential for U.S. exporters.”
  • Joining Reda for GE is Timothy Richards, GE Energy’s managing director for energy policy and a veteran of several previous missions to India. Those previous missions focused on civilian nuclear cooperation as a means to help modernize India’s industrial infrastructure and support future economic growth.
D'coda Dcoda

DOE Releases Draft EIS on Proposed Low-Level Nuclear Waste Sites, Disposal Methods [21F... - 0 views

  • The Department of Energy on Friday issued a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on low-level radioactive waste disposal, with public meetings set for April and May in cities near potential waste sites in Oregon, Idaho, Washington, Nevada, New Mexico and South Carolina. The EIS addresses greater-than-class-C (GTCC) low-level-radioactive waste (LLRW) as DOE considers new and existing storage facilities. GTCC waste comes from power plants, medical treatments, medical diagnostics and oil and gas exploration, as well as other industrial processes. The EIS and waste sites do not involve high-level waste like spent fuel.
  • In a release, DOE estimates current GTCC and GTCC-like LLRW in storage at 1,100 cubic meters. The EIS estimates an additional 175 cubic meters of waste will be generated each year over the next six decades. In looking for places to store that waste, the EIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of using both new and existing waste facilities. Disposal methods evaluated include deep geological repository, intermediate depth boreholes, enhanced near-surface trenches and above-grade vaults
  • “disposal locations analyzed include the Hanford Site in Washington; Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho; the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) and the WIPP vicinity in New Mexico; the Nevada National Security Site (formerly the Nevada Test Site) in Nevada; and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. The Draft EIS also evaluates generic commercial disposal sites in four regions of the U.S., as well as a no action alternative.”
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • DOE has not yet identified a preferred alternative for waste disposal, but a preferred alternative or combination of alternatives will be identified in the final EIS. Before making a final decision on disposal method or location, the agency would need to submit its findings to Congress and wait for legislative action.
D'coda Dcoda

Saudi Arabia, peak oil and a man named Rostam Ghasemi [04Aug11] - 0 views

  • Over the years, we’ve heard rumblings about the dwindling supply of precious Saudi oil. Now it’s becoming apparent that not only are they beginning to run dry, they’ve been grossly overstating what they already had (by 40% to be precise).
  • This is alarming if not just for the fact that global peak oil (whilst not being officially acknowledged) is already slowing production in the major oil exporting countries. Saddad al-Husseini, the former head of exploration at the Saudi oil monopoly Aramco, revealed that the Kingdom’s oil capacity “will have hit its highest point by 2012″.
  • However, realists familiar with the engineering reports are saying we hit peak oil two years ago and have simply been going off articifially inflated reserve estimates
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • 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.
D'coda Dcoda

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Expands Supplier Network in Poland as Government Prepares to ... - 0 views

  • With Poland evaluating two GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) reactor models for the country’s first nuclear power plant projects, GEH today announced it has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Warsaw-based engineering firm Energoprojekt Warszawa, S.A. (EW) to discuss the feasibility of partnering on future reactor projects.
  • The MOU with Energoprojekt Warszawa is the latest in a series of preliminary agreements that GEH has signed with Polish suppliers as the government prepares to develop Poland’s first two nuclear generating stations to diversify the country’s energy supplies. Under the new MOU, both companies will explore how EW could provide specific engineering services to GEH for the potential development of new nuclear power plants in Poland.
  • “This initial action shows the future possibility of creating jobs and cooperation related not only to Polish suppliers of fixtures, construction and installation works, but to Polish planning and engineering during the plant’s construction process.”
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Polish utility Polska Grupa Energetyczna S.A. (PGE) is still considering several reactor designs for the projects and Poland’s government expects to begin construction of its first nuclear power plant in 2016 and has targeted 2020 as the commercial date of operation (COD) for the first plant. The Generation III+ Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) is GEH’s newest reactor design and offers the world’s most advanced passive safety systems. GEH’s Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) is the world’s only commercially proven Generation III reactor model.
  • Other preliminary project development agreements signed by GEH include: March 2011 with the Institute of Atomic Energy in Poland (POLATOM), a research institute located in Świerk that advises the government on nuclear energy issues. January 2011 Stocznia Gdansk, a leading Polish shipyard, for the potential manufacturing of nuclear components for GEH. RAFAKO S.A., Europe’s leading boiler equipment manufacturer, for the potential manufacturing of nuclear components for GEH. Gdansk University of Technology, West Pomeranian University of Technology, Szczecin University, and Koszalin University of Technology. May 2010 with global engineering services firm SNC-Lavalin Polska.
  • GE currently has more than 10,000 employees in Poland.
  • Helping Poland Develop Domestic Nuclear Workforce GEH is demonstrating its commitment to supporting Poland’s economy by helping the country create a sustainable, domestic pool of nuclear engineers by donating a number of valuable GateCycle ™ heat balance modeling software packages to several Polish universities. GEH’s customized GateCycle software is used to model nuclear steam cycles and is a powerful tool in teaching students advanced methods of plant modeling and troubleshooting to optimize plant performance. GEH also is hosting 14 engineering interns from Poland. The students recently began their summer internships at GEH’s U.S. headquarters in Wilmington, N.C. The 10-week assignment will expose them to many facets of the nuclear industry including engineering, finance, regulatory affairs and information management.
  •  
    also has info on helping Poland develop domestic nuclear workforce
D'coda Dcoda

New gov't panel begins talks to review Japan's energy policy [05Oct11] - 0 views

  • A new government energy panel, with nearly half of member experts critical of nuclear power generation, began discussing Monday revising Japan's national energy policy in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear crisis. The panel's deliberations are important as they will "probe a road Japan will take over the next 100 or 200 years," Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Yukio Edano told the first meeting of the group.
  • The panel, newly created under the energy advisory committee of the industry ministry, is tasked with reviewing Japan's basic energy plan that calls for greater reliance on nuclear energy, revised just last year. It envisages nuclear power accounting for 53 percent of all electricity generated in Japan by 2030 from about 30 percent before the March 11 disaster. With around 10 of the 25 panel members opposing nuclear power generation, opinions both for and against nuclear energy were presented during the panel meeting. It differed from similar meetings in the past. A previous panel contained few opponents of nuclear energy, with the ministry playing an important role in promoting nuclear power generation. The panel, headed by Nippon Steel Corp. Chairman Akio Mimura, plans to compile a new energy plan by around next summer.
  • Edano asked panel members to promote discussions to sufficiently explore how the nation's energy policy should be, without being constrained by the current energy situation, saying, "Since the (Fukushima) accident, citizens' opinions and their trust on nuclear power have changed substantially." Since the start of the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant triggered by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, the government has shifted its stance to reducing the nation's reliance on nuclear power. The panel experts differ on how quickly to reduce Japan's reliance on nuclear power, as well as ways to introduce renewable energy.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • I think it will be important for Japan to keep contributing to the world by improving nuclear technologies, from the standpoint of the nation's energy policy and its diplomatic strategy," Utsuda said. Ryutaro Kono, chief economist at BNP Paribas Securities (Japan) Ltd., said there is a need to exit from nuclear power while taking measures to minimize negative impact of doing so on the economy. Discussions by the panel were open to the public through online broadcasting.
D'coda Dcoda

The human element | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists [01Sep11] - 0 views

  • Nuclear reactors are operated by fallible human beings, and at least two meltdowns have been caused by poor human decisions: the 1961 meltdown of an experimental military reactor in Idaho, which killed three operators when one of them withdrew a control rod six times as far as he was supposed to (carrying out a high-tech murder-suicide over a love triangle, according to some accounts), and the Chernobyl accident, which was caused by an ill-conceived experiment conducted outside approved protocols.
  • So, if nuclear safety is a matter of human behavior as well as sound technical infrastructure, we should look to the social sciences in addition to engineering to improve reactor safety. After all, the machines don't run themselves. The social sciences have five lessons for us here: The blind spot. In what we might call the frog-in-boiling-water syndrome, human cognition is such that, in the absence of a disaster, individuals often filter out accumulating indications of safety problems that look like obvious red flags in retrospect -- just as frogs do not jump out of a pot of water on a stove as long as the temperature goes up slowly. Diane Vaughan's award-winning book on the Challenger disaster demonstrates a clear pattern in earlier space shuttle launches of O-ring performance degrading in proportion to declining launch temperatures -- the problem that would ultimately kill Challenger's ill-fated crew. Some shuttle engineers had become concerned about this, but the organizational complex responsible for the space shuttle could not bring this problem into full cognitive focus as long as the missions were successful. Operational success created a blinding glow that made this safety issue hard to see.
  • The whistle-blower's dilemma. The space shuttle program provides another example of human fallibility, explored in William Langewische's account of the Columbia space shuttle accident: Large, technical organizations tend to be unfriendly to employees who harp on safety issues. The NASA engineers who warned senior management -- correctly, as it turned out -- that the Columbia shuttle was endangered by the foam it lost on takeoff were treated as pests. (The same is true of Roger Boisjoly, the Morton Thiokol engineer who was ostracized and punished for having warned correctly that the Challenger shuttle was likely to explode if launched at low temperature.) Large technical organizations prioritize meeting deadlines and fulfilling production targets, and their internal reward structures tend to reflect these priorities. This is especially true if the organizations operate in a market environment where revenue streams are at stake. In such organizations, bonuses tend not to go to those who cause the organization to miss targets and deadlines or spend extra money to prevent accidents that may seem hypothetical. It is not the safety engineers, after all, who become CEOs. Those with safety concerns report that they often censor themselves unless they are deeply convinced of the urgency of their cause. Indeed, there is -- sadly -- substantial literature on the various forms of mistreatment of engineers who do come forward with such concerns.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • The wild card. Finally, human nature being what it is, there are always the wild cards: people who kill romantic rivals via nuclear meltdown, freelance experimenters, terrorists, operators who should never have made it through personnel screening, operators who are drunk on the job, operators whose performance has declined through laziness, depression, boredom, or any host of reasons.
  • Overwhelmed by speed and complexity. As Charles Perrow argues in his influential book Normal Accidents, which was inspired by the Three Mile Island accident, human operators function well in environments of routinized normality; but, when highly complex technical systems function in unpredicted ways -- especially if the jagged interactions between subsystems unfold very rapidly -- then the human capacity for cognitive processing is quickly overwhelmed. In other words, if a reactor is veering toward an accident caused by the failure of a single system in a way that operators have been trained to handle, then they are likely to retain control. But, if the accident-in-the-making involves unforeseen combinations of failures unfolding quickly and requires improvised responses rather than routinized ones, the outcome is far less hopeful.
  • The politics of oversight. Regulatory apparatuses tend to degrade over time -- especially in political systems such as America's, which tend to facilitate the corporate capture of government functions. Thanks to the leverage afforded by campaign donations and the revolving door between public and private employment, industries have become extremely skillful at inserting their former employees, future employees, and other allies into the very regulatory agencies that oversee them. A brilliant piece of investigative journalism on the Securities and Exchange Commission in the latest issue of Rolling Stone shows how this can reduce a regulatory agency to an empty husk. Whether it's the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the Food and Drug Administration, the story is the same: Government agencies that started off as aggressive watchdogs have become absorbed over time by those over whom they have titular oversight. Americans recently saw the dire consequences of this trend in the banking meltdown of 2008.
  • The bottom line: Nuclear safety is threatened by human as well as technical malfunctions, and the risk of disaster can only be attenuated through attention to the principles of social engineering as well as nuclear engineering. While human behavior can always overflow the bounds of our plans for its containment, there are measures that can at least lower the risk of a nuclear disaster caused by human factors: First, the nuclear industry needs to do more to both protect and reward whistle-blowers; and, second, the industry needs regulators with a genuine desire to exercise oversight -- rather than people hoping to increase their income by later going to work for the very companies that they were regulating. Unfortunately, this goes against the ethos of the contemporary United States, where the trend-lines are going in the wrong direction.
D'coda Dcoda

Plugging leaks will end crisis, not cold shutdown: analysts [12Sep11] - 0 views

  • Ever since the nuclear crisis erupted six months ago, the public has been clamoring to know when the damaged reactors at the Fu ku shi ma No. 1 power plant will be brought under control and when the nightmare will end. The government and Tokyo Electric Power Co., which runs the crippled plant, are working to bring the three reactors into cold shutdown by mid-January.
  • Cold shutdown means the temperature at the bottom of the pressure vessel, which holds the core, has been lowered to less than 100 degrees. This critical milestone, known as "Step 2" in Tepco's road map for containing the crisis, would limit the release of radioactive materials from the plant to less than 1 millisievert per year, a level that poses no health risks.
  • Since work at the plant is proceeding relatively smoothly, it appears likely the mid-January target will be met. But Fukushima No. 1 will still have a long way to go before the flooded plant's reactors are stable enough to be considered safe, experts warn. The main reason is the abundance of highly radioactive water.
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • "There are about 110,00 tons of contaminated water (in the plant) and the situation is still not completely under control because coolant water is leaking from the containment vessels. There is no guarantee that the irradiated water won't leak from the plant (and contaminate the environment)" if another natural disaster strikes, said Hisashi Ninokata, a professor of reactor engineering at the Tokyo Institute of Technology.
  • After achieving cold shutdowns of reactors 1, 2 and 3, the government may declare parts of the 20-km no-go zone around the plant safe. It may even let the evacuees return, as long as the area is decontaminated and crucial infrastructure restored.
  • But the longer the tainted water leaks, the more the radioactive waste will grow, leaving the Fukushima plant vulnerable to further disasters, Ninokata said. Before the Fukushima crisis can be said contained, the holes and cracks from which the water and fuel are escaping must be located and sealed. But this extremely difficult task could take years because the radiation near the reactors is simply too high to let workers get near them.
  • "It'll be too early to say that the situation has reached a stable phase even after Step 2 is completed," said Chihiro Kamisawa, a researcher at Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, a nonprofit group of scientists and activists opposed to nuclear power. When a reactor is in cold shutdown, the water cooling its fuel is still hot but no longer boiling, which significantly reduces the amount of radioactive emissions.
  • In late July, the temperature in reactor No. 1's pressure vessel fell below 100 degrees. On Monday, the same thing was achieved in reactor 3 after Tepco activated a system that pumps water deep into the containment vessel. But on Friday, reactor No. 2 was still boiling away with a reading of 112.6. "Efforts seem to be making smooth progress, and I think Step 2 is likely to be achieved by mid-January," said Shinichi Morooka, a Waseda University professor and reactor expert.
  • Another reason for optimism is the progress being made with the water decontamination system. The cleaning rate has greatly improved in the past few weeks and exceeded 90 percent of capacity last week. If the decontamination system ever reaches its full potential, it will allow Tepco to inject coolant at a higher rate and bring the melted cores to lower and stabler temperatures.
  • The government also plans to start decontaminating soil in various hot spots so the evacuees can return once the second step is completed. But some experts are questioning whether residents should be allowed to return so soon. The cracks and holes in the leaking reactors haven't even been pinpointed yet, let alone fixed, they say.
  • "As an engineer, I am worried (about the plan to let residents return) when it is still unclear what is really going on inside the reactors," said Morooka. For the time being, Tepco can only guess where the water is leaking from and which parts need repair, because radiation has prevented workers from fully exploring the buildings.
  • Spokesman Junichi Matsumoto said that since no extensive damage to the reactors was found during inspections of the first and second floors of the buildings, any holes or cracks are probably at the basement level. But with the basement floors flooded, Tepco's top priority is just to get the water out. Plans to fix the reactors aren't even being discussed yet, Matsumoto said.
  • Asked if the containment vessels can take another quake, the Tokyo Institute of Technology's Ninokata said he believes the impact would likely be distributed evenly through the structure without widening existing cracks or holes. But if the impact somehow focuses on parts damaged by the March 11 disasters, there could be further damage, he said. "The containment vessel is what really ensures the safety of a nuclear reactor," Ninokata said, warning that if radioactive materials are still leaking out, allowing residents to return would risk harming their health.
Jan Wyllie

Nuclear Power Protests In Tokyo, Japan [19Sep11] - 0 views

  • Chanting "Sayonara nuclear power" and waving banners, tens of thousands of people marched in central Tokyo on Monday to call on Japan's government to abandon atomic energy in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident.
  • Police estimated the crowd at 20,000 people, while organizers said there were three times that many people.
  • But he has also said the country should reduce its reliance on atomic energy over the long-term and explore alternative sources of energy.
D'coda Dcoda

The Dispatch Queue - An Alternative Means of Accounting for External Costs? [28Sep11] - 0 views

  • Without much going on recently that hasn’t been covered by other blog posts, I’d like to explore a topic not specifically tied to nuclear power or to activities currently going on in Washington, D.C. It involves an idea I have about a possible alternative means of having the electricity market account for the public health and environmental costs of various energy sources, and encouraging the development and use of cleaner sources (including nuclear) without requiring legislation. Given the failure of Congress to take action on global warming, as well as environmental issues in general, non-legislative approaches to accomplishing environmental goals may be necessary. The Problem
  • One may say that the best response would be to significantly tighten pollution regulations, perhaps to the point where no sources have significant external costs. There are problems with this approach, however, above and beyond the fact that the energy industry has (and will?) successfully blocked the legislation that would be required. Significant tightening of regulations raises issues such as how expensive compliance will be, and whether or not viable alternative (cleaner) sources would be available. The beauty of simply placing a cost (or tax) on pollution that reflects its costs to public health and the environment is that those issues need not be addressed. The market just decides between sources based on the true, overall cost of each, resulting in the minimum overall (economic + environmental) cost-generation portfolio
  • The above reasoning is what led to policies like cap-and-trade or a CO2 emissions tax being proposed as a solution for the global warming problem. This has not flown politically, however. Policies that attempt to have external costs included in the market cost of energy have been labeled a “tax increase.” This is particularly true given that the associated pollution taxes (or emissions credit costs) would have largely gone to the government.
  • ...15 more annotations...
  • One final idea, which does not involve money going to or from government, is simply requiring that cleaner sources provide a certain fraction of our overall power generation. The many state Renewable Portfolio Standards (that do not include nuclear) and the Clean Energy Standard being considered by Congress and the Obama administration (which does include nuclear) are examples of this policy. While better than nothing, such policies are not ideal in that they are crude, and don’t involve a quantitative incentive based on real external costs. An energy source is either defined as “clean,” or it is not. Note that the definition of “clean” would be decided politically, as opposed to objectively based on tangible external costs determined by scientific studies (nuclear’s exclusion from state Renewable Portfolio Standards policies being one outrageous example). Finally, there is the fact that any such policy would require legislation.
  • Well, if we can’t tax pollution, how about encouraging the use of clean sources by giving them subsidies? This has proved to be more popular so far, but this idea has also recently run into trouble, given the current situation with the budget deficit and national debt. Events like the Solyndra bankruptcy have put government clean energy subsidies even more on the defensive. Thus, it seems that neither policies involving money flowing to the government nor policies involving money flowing from the government are politically viable at this point.
  • All of the above begs the question whether there is a policy available that will encourage the use of cleaner energy sources that is revenue-neutral (i.e., does not involve money flowing to or from the government), does not involve the outright (political) selection of certain energy sources over others, and does not require legislation. Enter the Dispatch Queue
  • There must be enough power plants in a given region to meet the maximum load (or demand) expected to occur. In fact, total generation capacity must exceed maximum demand by a specified “reserve margin,” to address the possibility of a plant going offline, or other possible considerations. Due to the fact that demand varies significantly with time, a significant fraction of the generation capacity remains offline, some or most of the time. The dispatch queue is a means by which utilities, or independent regional grid operators, decide which power plants will operate in order to meet demand at any given instant. A good discussion of dispatch queues and how they operate can be found in this Department of Energy report.
  • The general goal of the methodology used to set the dispatch queue order is to minimize overall generation cost, while staying in compliance with all federal or state laws (environmental rules, etc.). This is done by placing the power plants with the lowest “variable” cost first in the queue. Plants with the highest “variable” cost are placed last. The “variable” cost of a plant represents how much more it costs to operate the plant than it costs to leave it idle (i.e., it includes the fuel cost and maintenance costs that arise from operation, but does not include the plant capital cost, personnel costs, or any fixed maintenance costs). Thus, one starts with the least expensive plants, and moves up (in cost) until generation meets demand. The remaining, more expensive plants are not fired up. This ensures that the lowest-operating-cost set of plants is used to meet demand at any given time
  • As far as who makes the decisions is concerned, in many cases the local utility itself runs the dispatch for its own service territory. In most of the United States, however, there is a large regional grid (covering several utilities) that is operated by an Independent System Operator (ISO) or Regional Transmission Organization (RTO), and those organizations, which are independent of the utilities, set the dispatch queue for the region. The Idea
  • As discussed above, a plant’s place in the dispatch queue is based upon variable cost, with the lowest variable cost plants being first in the queue. As discussed in the DOE report, all the dispatch queues in the country base the dispatch order almost entirely on variable cost, with the only possible exceptions being issues related to maximizing grid reliability. What if the plant dispatch methodology were revised so that environmental costs were also considered? Ideally, the public health and environmental costs would be objectively and scientifically determined and cast in terms of an equivalent economic cost (as has been done in many scientific studies such as the ExternE study referenced earlier). The calculated external cost would be added to a plant’s variable cost, and its place in the dispatch queue would be adjusted accordingly. The net effect would be that dirtier plants would be run much less often, resulting in greatly reduced pollution.
  • This could have a huge impact in the United States, especially at the current time. Currently, natural gas prices are so low that the variable costs of combine-cycle natural gas plants are not much higher than those of coal plants, even without considering environmental impacts. Also, there is a large amount of natural gas generation capacity sitting idle.
  • More specifically, if dispatch queue ordering methods were revised to even place a small (economic) weight on environmental costs, there would be a large switch from coal to gas generation, with coal plants (especially the older, dirtier ones) moving to the back of the dispatch queue, and only running very rarely (at times of very high demand). The specific idea of putting gas plants ahead of coal plants in the dispatch queue is being discussed by others.
  • The beauty of this idea is that it does not involve any type of tax or government subsidy. It is revenue neutral. Also, depending on the specifics of how it’s implemented, it can be quantitative in nature, with environmental costs of various power plants being objectively weighed, as opposed certain sources simply being chosen, by government/political fiat, over others. It also may not require legislation (see below). Finally, dispatch queues and their policies and methods are a rather arcane subject and are generally below the political radar (many folks haven’t even heard of them). Thus, this approach may allow the nation’s environmental goals to be (quietly) met without causing a political uproar. It could allow policy makers to do the right thing without paying too high of a political cost.
  • Questions/Issues The DOE report does mention some examples of dispatch queue methods factoring in issues other than just the variable cost. It is fairly common for issues of grid reliability to be considered. Also, compliance with federal or state environmental requirements can have some impacts. Examples of such laws include limits on the hours of operation for certain polluting facilities, or state requirements that a “renewable” facility generate a certain amount of power over the year. The report also discusses the possibility of favoring more fuel efficient gas plants over less efficient ones in the queue, even if using the less efficient plants at that moment would have cost less, in order to save natural gas. Thus, the report does discuss deviations from the pure cost model, to consider things like environmental impact and resource conservation.
  • I could not ascertain from the DOE report, however, what legal authorities govern the entities that make the plant dispatch decisions (i.e., the ISOs and RTOs), and what types of action would be required in order to change the dispatch methodology (e.g., whether legislation would be required). The DOE report was a study that was called for by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which implies that its conclusions would be considered in future congressional legislation. I could not tell from reading the report if the lowest cost (only) method of dispatch is actually enshrined somewhere in state or federal law. If so, the changes I’m proposing would require legislation, of course.
  • The DOE report states that in some regions the local utility runs the dispatch queue itself. In the case of the larger grids run by the ISOs and RTOs (which cover most of the country), the report implies that those entities are heavily influenced, if not governed, by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which is part of the executive branch of the federal government. In the case of utility-run dispatch queues, it seems that nothing short of new regulations (on pollution limits, or direct guidance on dispatch queue ordering) would result in a change in dispatch policy. Whereas reducing cost and maximizing grid reliability would be directly in the utility’s interest, favoring cleaner generation sources in the queue would not, unless it is driven by regulations. Thus, in this case, legislation would probably be necessary, although it’s conceivable that the EPA could act (like it’s about to on CO2).
  • In the case of the large grids run by ISOs and RTOs, it’s possible that such a change in dispatch methodology could be made by the federal executive branch, if indeed the FERC has the power to mandate such a change
  • Effect on Nuclear With respect to the impacts of including environmental costs in plant dispatch order determination, I’ve mainly discussed the effects on gas vs. coal. Indeed, a switch from coal to gas would be the main impact of such a policy change. As for nuclear, as well as renewables, the direct/immediate impact would be minimal. That is because both nuclear and renewable sources have high capital costs but very low variable costs. They also have very low environmental impacts; much lower than those of coal or gas. Thus, they will remain at the front of the dispatch queue, ahead of both coal and gas.
D'coda Dcoda

History of the Antinuclear Movement, Part 2b [20Jun11] - 0 views

  • Deregulate The AtomHistory of the Antinuclear Movement, Part 2b var addthis_product = 'wpp-258'; var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":false}; The different and more diffuse class composition of the European antinuclear movement found visible expression in the tactics of the activists and the police, which were much more belligerent than in America. In Europe, antinuclear protesters carried out acts of sabotage against power-lines, railroad lines, construction sites, factories supplying nuclear plants, and installations of utility companies including bombs placed near nuclear construction sites or plants. Marches and rallies attracting upward of 50,000 were commonplace. Police responded physically against demonstrators, using tear gas, clubs, dogs, even grenades, causing hundreds of injured and even death (as in the case of Malville). Civil war-like street blockades, dozens of miles away from the demonstration-sites and at national borders were set up to block demonstrators. Compared to the small showings and relatively peaceful actions in North America, the European state of affairs was much more dynamic. The movement against the nuclear plants was one of the biggest mass movements of the 1970s and 80s in Germany. After a slowdown since, it has reappeared now like a phoenix from the ashes, The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 was a pivotal event for Germany’s anti-nuclear movement, following the event, the Green Party strived for the immediate shut-down of all nuclear facilities. The SPD pushed for a nuclear phase-out within ten years. Länder governments, municipalities, parties and trade unions explored the question of whether the use of nuclear power technology was reasonable and sensible for the future.
  • May 1986 clashes between anti-nuclear protesters and West German police became common. More than 400 people were injured in mid-May at the site of a nuclear-waste reprocessing plant being built near Wackersdorf. Police used water cannons and dropped tear-gas grenades from helicopters to subdue protesters armed with slingshots, crowbars and Molotov cocktails. Starting from 1995, when the first transports of nuclear waste to Gorleben took place, there was a slow, but continuous new growth of resistance, with demonstrations and blockades of the railway. In 2002, the “Act on the structured phase-out of the utilization of nuclear energy for the commercial generation of electricity” took effect, following a drawn-out political debate and lengthy negotiations with nuclear power plant operators. The act legislated for the shut-down of all German nuclear plants by 2021
  •  
    finish reading on the site
D'coda Dcoda

France Commits to Nuclear Future [07Jul11] - 0 views

  • As a long time proponent of nuclear power, last week France announced that it will invest $1.4 billion in its nuclear energy program, diverging from contentious deliberation from neighboring states on nuclear energy policy after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan that damaged the Fukushima Daiichi plant in March. The President of France, Nicholas Sarkozy, issued a strong commitment announcing the energy funding package by declaring there is “no alternative to nuclear energy today.” With the capital used to fund fourth generation nuclear power plant technology, focusing research development in nuclear safety, the announcement validates many decades of energy infrastructure and legacy expansion. France currently operates the second largest nuclear fleet in the world with 58 reactors, responsible for supplying more than 74 percent of domestic electricity demand supplied to the world’s fifth largest economy last year. At the end of last month, French uranium producer, Areva Group (EPA:AREVA), and Katko announced plans to increase production to 4,000 tonnes of uranium next year.  Katco is a joint venture for Areva, the world’s largest builder of nuclear power plants, and Kazatomprom the national operator for uranium prospecting, exploration and production for Kazakhstan.
  • German closure The pronouncement to maintain the nuclear prominence in France provides a strong counterweight to other countries in the region. Germany recently announced the phased shutdown of its 17 nuclear power stations by 2022.  Last week, Germany’s federal parliament voted overwhelmingly to close its remaining nine active plants according to a preset 11 year schedule. A Federal Network Agency, which oversees German energy markets, will decide by the end of September whether one of the eight nuclear plants already closed in recent months should be kept ready on a “cold reserve” basis, to facilitate the transition for national energy supply. The German commitment to an energy policy transition indicates that the national power mix towards renewable sources will have to double from its present range of 17 percent to an ambitious 35 percent. Subsidies for hydro electric and geothermal energy will increase; however, financial support for biomass, solar, and wind energy will be reduced. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said she would prefer for utility suppliers not to make up any electrical shortfalls after 2022 by obtaining nuclear power from neighboring countries like France. Germany will require an expansive supergrid to effectively distribute electricity from the north to growing industrial urban centers like Munich, in the south. In order to execute this plan the new laws call for the addition of some 3,600 kilometers of high capacity power lines. Germany’s strategy will partially include the expansion of wind turbines on the North Sea, enabling some 25,000 megawatts’ worth of new offshore wind power which will have to be developed by 2030. Nuclear persistence in the United Kingdom Last month, the government in the United Kingdom maintained its strong commitment to nuclear energy, confirming a series of potential locations for new nuclear builds.  The national policy statements on energy said renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage “all have a part to play in delivering the United Kingdom’s decarbonisation objectives,” and confirmed eight sites around the country as suitable for building new nuclear stations by 2025. The statements, which are to be debated in Parliament, include a commitment for an additional 33,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity, while the government said more than $160 billion will be required to replace around 25 percent of the country’s generating capacity, due to close by 2020. The Scottish government has also softened its tough opposition to nuclear power, following recognition by the energy minister of a “rational case” to extend operations at Scotland’s two nuclear plants. Additional Eurozone participation In June, Italian voters rejected a government proposal to reintroduce nuclear power. The plan by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to restart Italy’s nuclear energy program abandoned during the 1980s, was rejected by 94 percent of voters in the referendum. Another regional stakeholder, the Swiss government has decided not to replace the four nuclear power plants that supply about 40 percent of the country’s electricity. The last of Switzerland’s power nuclear plants is expected to end production by 2034, leaving time for the country to develop alternative power sources. Although the country is home to the oldest nuclear reactor presently in operation, the Swiss Energy Foundation has stated an objective to work for “an ecological, equitable and sustainable energy policy”. Its “2000 watt society” promotes energy solutions which employ renewable energy resources other than fossil fuels or nuclear power.
D'coda Dcoda

Research and Markets: Nuclear Regulatory Frameworks - Fuel Processing and Waste Disposa... - 0 views

  • Research and Markets (http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/b6d3ce/nuclear_regulatory) has announced the addition of the "Nuclear Regulatory Frameworks - Fuel Processing and Waste Disposal Policies Critical for Industry Growth" report to their offering. Nuclear Regulatory Frameworks - Fuel Processing and Waste Disposal Policies Critical for Industry Growth, that provides an insight into the nuclear regulatory frameworks of the major nuclear power countries of the world. The study, which is an offering from the company's Energy Research Group, provides information about the major nuclear agencies and associations across the world, major nuclear treaties and protocols and comparison between different countries on the basis of selected parameters which define the presence of nuclear power in a country. The research also provides the nuclear policy, regulatory frameworks, key nuclear policies and regulations and also the major nuclear affiliations for major nuclear power generating countries in each of the five geographic regions. The report is built using the data and information sourced from proprietary databases, primary and secondary research and in-house analysis by a team of industry experts.
  • Carbon Emission Reduction Protocol to Play an Important Role in Nuclear Policies Formulation
  • Improved Nuclear Waste Disposal Policy Instrumental in Revitalizing the Nuclear Industry
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Most of the countries either use large repository or reprocess the fuel as a mean to dispose the nuclear waste. The following table shows the list of different countries and their ways for disposing the radioactive waste. Nuclear Non- Proliferation Makes Way for Peaceful and Non-Power Applications
  • The nuclear energy is used in transport application, in medicines and in industries as radioisotopes, in space exploration programs, in nuclear desalination, in nuclear heat process and in other research programs.
  • Scope Overview of the global nuclear power industry Analysis of the historical trends of nuclear capacity and generation until 2009. Description of the various nuclear agencies and associations, globally and by region. Description of the various nuclear treaties and protocols. Analysis of the nuclear energy policy of the major countries in all geographic regions Analysis of the regulatory frameworks in major countries of different geographic regions including North America, South and Central America, Europe, Middle East and Africa and Asia Pacific.
  • Reasons to Buy
  •  
    This is the competition? This report on nuclear industry, at a price. First one I've seen so far.
1 - 20 of 25 Next ›
Showing 20 items per page