Home
Energy Net's Library tagged → View Popular
DOE to Study Storage Options for Spent Nuclear Fuel, Small Reactors -- Official - NYTimes.com
The Energy Department is close to naming a blue-ribbon committee to consider new policies for dealing with spent nuclear reactor fuel but has further to go in completing negotiations on loan guarantees for a first group of new nuclear reactors, Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman said.
Poneman also said he is interested in the possibilities for development of smaller modular nuclear reactors, calling this a potentially important carbon policy option in the United States and abroad. "I certainly agree with the premise that small, modular reactors are a very interesting path to explore," Poneman said in an interview this week.
Nuclear Power | Renewable Energy
The fall-out from Copenhagen has left the world's biggest "carbon criminals", among them Australia, exposed on climate change. With the overthrow of Malcolm Turnbull in the Liberal party along with the proposed ETS, the ascension of Tony Abbot and his emphasis on "direct action" it was inevitable that the federal Opposition would revisit nuclear power as an option for a low-carbon future in Australia. Given the recent sobering Government report on carbon capture and storage, "clean coal" seems less and less as the likely saviour.
Nuclear Energy - The New York Times
Nuclear power plants use the forces within the nucleus of an atom to generate electricity.
The first nuclear reactor was built by Enrico Fermi below the stands of Stagg Field in Chicago in 1942. The first commercial reactor went into operation in Shippingport, Pa., in December, 1957.
In its early years, nuclear power seemed the wave of the future, a clean source of potentially limitless cheap electricity. But progress was slowed by the high, unpredictable cost of building plants, uneven growth in electric demand, the fluctuating cost of competing fuels like oil and safety concerns.
In pushing nuclear power, Udall battling the Homer Simpson factor « Colorado Independent
Turns out Colorado U.S. Sen. Mark Udall is battling environmentalists and public fear of nuclear meltdowns on his new pro-nuke bill less than he’s battling the lingering stigma that Homer Simpson and his scofflaw boss Mr. Burns generated at their Springfield nuclear power plant.
homer simpson
Where does this bit of wisdom on the hurdles facing the nuclear industry revival come from? From the staid Wall Street Journal, which Tuesday blogged about a Canadian professor who’s been talking up the Simpson factor on north-of-the-border radio shows in the wake of the regulatory rejection of a nuclear power plant in Saskatchewan.
A nuclear reactor in Egypt? - Haaretz - Israel News
"Egypt will not enjoy its sovereignty unless it has the strength to implement a just peace, and therefore developing a nuclear program is part of national security," says Dr. Rashad Al-Qubaisi, the former head of the International Center for Nuclear Weapons at the United Nations and the person responsible for preparing a report on establishing a nuclear reactor in Egypt. "I am of the opinion that possessing an atom bomb is essential if you want to enjoy power and sovereignty. I will not forget what the Indian ambassador said to me when we discovered that India was holding nuclear experiments in 1997 - 'Our national security is more important to us than water or food.'" Qubaisi, who criticizes the Egyptian government for not approving nuclear supervision in its territory, says no country in the region, including Israel, has conducted nuclear experiments because they are so simple to trace. "Israel conducts its experiments via computer simulations - impossible to detect," he says.
t r u t h o u t | Helen Caldicott Slams Environmental Groups on Climate Bill, Nuclear Concessions
Dr. Helen Caldicott, the pioneering Australian antinuclear activist and pediatrician who spearheaded the global nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s and co-founded Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), has joined with left-leaning environmental groups here in an uphill fight to halt nuclear power as a "solution" to the global warming crisis. "Global warming is the greatest gift the nuclear industry has ever received," Dr. Caldicott told Truthout.
The growing rush to nuclear power was only enhanced, experts say, by the weak climate deal at the Copenhagen 15 climate conference. The prospects for passage of a climate bill in Congress - virtually all versions are pro-nuclear - were enhanced, most analysts say, because it offered the promise that China might voluntarily agree to verify its carbon reductions and it could reassure senators worried about American manufacturers being undermined by polluters overseas. But at the two-week international confab that didn't produce any binding agreements to do anything, Caldicott and environmental activist groups were marginalized or, in the case of the delegates from Friends of the Earth, evicted from the main hall.
News - Development: Cape residents oppose nuclear power station
Residents opposed to the building of a nuclear power station at Bantamsklip on the southern Cape coast staged a protest march through Hermanus on Saturday and handed a memorandum to the Overstrand municipality, saying the local authority had failed to represent their interests by supporting the proposed nuclear power plant.
John Williams, chairperson of the Save Bantamsklip Association, said on Sunday that about 300 people had marched through the town to protest against a proposal by Eskom to build nuclear reactors in "one of the hottest biodiversity hot spots in the world".
IAEA Applying a Nuclear Double-Standard by Gareth Porter -- Antiwar.com
In 2004, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) revealed that a member state had violated its Safeguards Agreement by carrying out covert uranium conversion and enrichment activities and plutonium experiments for more than two decades. The nature of certain of those enrichment activities, moreover, raised legitimate suspicions of interest in a nuclear weapons program.
The state was found to have lied to the IAEA even when it began investigating these suspicious activities, claiming that its laser enrichment research did not involve any use of nuclear material.
DOE scraps cheaper waste treatment plan - Mid-Columbia News | Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia news
The Department of Energy has dropped a proposal for a less expensive alternative to treating and disposing of some of Hanford's radioactive tank waste.
The alternative could have saved as much as $459 million, according to figures in an earlier Government Accountability Office report, but Hanford officials were unable to win the regulatory support of the states of Washington and New Mexico. About $40 million has been spent on the project.
Less than two months ago, DOE released a draft environmental impact study that included the less expensive option of sending some of Hanford's tank waste to a federal repository in New Mexico rather than glassifying it at the $12.2 billion vitrification plant being built at Hanford.
CAUSE - PART 6 of 6: The solution is sustainable 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.
CAUSE - PART 5 of 6: The pros and cons of nuclear energy
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.”
CAUSE - PART 4 of 6: The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
The purpose of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is to encourage the growth of nuclear power worldwide. “It was a Bush initiative that Canada joined in December 2007 without any debate in parliament,” explains Schacherl.
An article printed in The Toronto Star on November 29, 2007 called on Canada to join a controversial nuclear partnership. The plan proposes re-using nuclear waste, a practice effectively banned in Canada and the U.S. since the 1970s for security reasons. It was announced in this article that Canada would be a part of the GNEP. Dave Martin of Greenpeace Canada insisted that "no matter which side of the nuclear debate you fall on – pro or anti – everyone should be able to agree this is something which deserves public scrutiny."
Schacherl adds, “One of the principles of the GNEP partnership is that those countries who sell uranium will agree to take back the spent fuel. The United States, who initiated the partnership, benefits the most as it has a huge nuclear waste problem. Yucca Mountain, where long-term storage was once planned, has now been shelved for a number of reasons including community opposition. Countries such as Canada clearly don’t benefit as they will take
CAUSE - PART 3 of 6: The nuclear agenda for Alberta
Schacherl describes the nuclear agenda for Alberta. Bruce Power, a private nuclear operator from Ontario, is proposing to build four large first-of-a-kind nuclear reactors in the Peace River region that would produce 4,000 megawatts of nuclear power. As the Pembina Institute has shown in “Greening the Grid,” (http://re.pembina.org/pub/1763) all of our electrical needs can be met in Alberta over the next 20 years through energy efficiency, cogeneration and renewable energy such as wind, power and geothermal.
“From wind power alone, there is 11,500 megawatts in applications waiting to be considered. The excess energy that nuclear would produce would end up being exported likely to the United States,” verifies Schacherl.
One of the reasons why nuclear energy is being installed in Northern Alberta is for assisting oil sands operation for the purpose of extracting bitumen. However, Schacherl explains that in March 2007, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources concluded that “classic nuclear plants are too big for oil sands development and that smaller plants would have to be considered.”
CAUSE - PART 2 of 6: Nuclear energy operations will tax Alberta’s water system
It is still dubious as to how many nuclear reactors will be installed in Alberta since it all depends on water and approval after the environmental assessment. Schacherl claims that Energy Alberta Corporation, the original nuclear proponent, was intending to build 13 nuclear reactors in Alberta as part of their business plan. Then Bruce Power bought them out. Elena Schacherl founder of CAUSE explains, "When Bruce Power first came to Alberta, CEO Duncan Hawthorne stated that the Peace River region reactors are ‘just the start’ of development in Alberta. He admitted that the company has a ‘very aggressive growth program.’”
“What will be problematic for this plan in going forward, aside from public opposition, will be insufficient water for cooling. Nuclear uses 50% more water to generate electricity than fossil fuels. Bruce Power is now planning to build cooling towers and a cooling pond for the reactors proposed in Northern Alberta because there is not enough water for a ‘once through cooling system’ in the Peace River. But even then they have to pipe in water from the river to keep the cooling pond sufficiently filled. Not sure where they will find the water to venture into southern Alberta as well,” warns Schacherl.
Founder of Calgary-based grassroots movement CAUSE comments on nuclear versus sustainable energy
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.
Japan’s nuclear reactors delayed by islanders | Business | ICM Commercial & Business News
The construction of two nuclear reactors in the Japanese town of Kaminoseki has been delayed by at least two years as a result of strong resistance from the locals.
The Chugoku Electric Power Co. is expected to delay the start of work to build one of two 1,373-megawatt reactors at its planned nuclear power plant in Yamaguchi Prefecture for at least two years amid strong opposition from residents around the site, pushing back the start of commercial operations to March 2018.
Protest over removal of no-nukes signs - UPI.com
The Canadian province of Alberta is being challenged for its removal of nuclear protest signs from private property along roads, the Edmonton Journal said.
In a region along the Peace River in northwestern Alberta, "No to Nuclear" protest signs sprang up after the provincial government recently expressed interest in pursuing nuclear power, the Journal said.
This week, contracted Alberta Transportation crews began taking down the signs from public and private property, citing a provincial law that prohibits signage within 300 yards of a highway right-of-way.
The agency said it sent letters out last week advising property owners of the law.
Greentech Media: Nuclear Industry Wish List
The industry is angling for 25 to 30 new plants, loan guarantees and fuel recycling.
To meet the current goals for greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. would have to build 187 new nuclear plants by 2050, according to former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, who now co-chairs the Case Energy Coalition, which advocates increased nuclear power in the U.S.
But the industry will settle for 25 to 30 by 2030, she said. That would be enough to meet the expected growth in demand for electricity in the U.S. while keeping nuclear around 20 percent of the mix. The U.S. currently has 104 reactors.
Japan's Chugoku to delay reactor construction-Kyodo | Markets | Reuters
Japan's Chugoku Electric Power Co (9504.T) is likely to delay the start of construction on the No.1 reactor at its Kaminoseki nuclear plant by at least two years, until the financial year 2012/13 or later, Kyodo news agency reported on Thursday.
The move will push back the start of commercial operations of the 1,373-megawatt No.1 reactor by at least two years to the year starting in April 2017 or later, Kyodo said.
UPDATE 2-Saskatchewan nixes nuclear power plan | Reuters
* Says more information and consultation needed
* Bruce Power, gov't panel had urged reactor be built
By Cameron French
TORONTO, Dec 17 (Reuters) - The Canadian province of Saskatchewan, a top uranium producing region, said on Thursday it will not go ahead with construction of Western Canada's first nuclear power plant due to uncertainty about costs.
However, the government left the door open to future development and raised the possibility of co-operation with the neighboring Prairie provinces of Alberta and Manitoba.
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Groups interested in Policy
Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »
Join Diigo