RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Recent News
energy density × nonproliferation × nuclear waste × pollution × recent × storage
 |
| The height difference between a man and the moon is like the energy density difference between nuclear and any carbon combustion. |
2) Nuclear fuel is around 2,000,000 times more energy dense than coal, oil, and biomass. This means the quantity of nuclear waste is super tiny for the super huge amount of energy it produces. 2,000,000 times is like the difference between the diameter of the moon compared to the height of an adult person.
3) It can be recycled, and actually produces energy while being recycled, instead of requiring energy to recycle! Bill Gates is even backing a company potentially doing this in a new way.
 |
| The IFR- Integral Fast Reactor |
4) If recycled, the waste lifetime is reduced to around 300 years. This (both point 3 and 4) is possible using fast reactors, which have been demonstrated through over 400 reactor-years of operation.
5) In fact, a cool thing about radioactive elements in general is that they go away with time-- and the more radioactive they are, the quicker they go away. Some decay in a few seconds. A general rule of thumb is that after a few decades, the most dangerous elements are effectively gone.
6) You can easily detect even a single atom of radioactive material. You cannot detect arguably more dangerous pollutants such as mercury, lead, NOx or SO2 with near that kind of accuracy or ease-- elements that fossil fuel plants are putting out in significant quantities every minute of every day worldwide. These dangerous pollutants do not go away with time, worse, metals like mercury actually bio-accumulate.
 |
| A geiger counter can detect your radiation! Yes, you are radioactive! |
8) Dry cask storage is one of the most robust structures made by man. It can survive being dropped from thousands of feet, direct impact from an airplane crash, or explosives!
 |
| Medical isotopes are produced in reactors |
9) To that end, there has not been, in the history of worldwide commercial nuclear power, a known case of stolen commercially used nuclear fuel. It is too mixed up with different things and too difficult to handle to be very useful to anyone with bad intentions.
10) Even including the worst accidents in worldwide nuclear history, nuclear has the best safety record (deaths/yr) of any type of energy source, including wind, solar, natural gas, and coal. There have been no deaths in the history of U.S. commercial nuclear power due to exposure to nuclear waste.
Is it "waste" or "used" fuel with lots of value for society?
geothermal × green energy × low level × natural radiation × recent
On Earth Day, here are some fun facts about the Earth, the environment, and nuclear energy.
1) What could be more green than energy the Earth has made itself? Believe it or not, 17 sites in Africa have had their own functioning fission nuclear reactors in the earth. They left evidence of their existence in the form of the safe natural nuclear waste they left behind.
2) The sun produces light and heat through nuclear fusion. Almost all of the energy on Earth
that drives climate systems, ecosystems,
hydrologic systems, etc., originates from the sun. Solar energy is
created at the core of the sun when hydrogen atoms are fused into helium
by nuclear fusion. So, solar energy is in reality a derivative of
nuclear energy!
3) The Earth's core is warmed by nuclear decay. The vast majority of the heat in Earth's interior—up to 90 percent—is
fueled by the decay of radioactive isotopes like Potassium-40,
Uranium-238, Uranium-235, and Thorium-232 contained within the mantle. These
isotopes radiate heat as they shed excess energy and move toward
stability. So, geothermal energy is also a form of natural nuclear energy.
4) I am radioactive and so are you. In fact, the Earth is radioactive, and so are every carbon-based plant and animal. Being around granite or eating a banana elevate your radiation exposure in a natural way at low levels. A banana is around 0.01 mrem of dose. Being within 50 miles of a nuclear plant for a year would give about 0.01 mrem, or a banana. Being within 50 miles of a coal plant is equal to about 3 bananas. Being in the Vatican for a year is estimated to equal to about 80,000 bananas-- because of all the granite/marble.
5) Nuclear energy produces 2/3rds of the emission- and carbon-free power in the United States. It doesn't dam up any waterways for fish and it doesn't disrupt migratory pathways for birds and bats! And, of its rated power, it produces over 90% of the time (it is around 10-30% for wind and solar).
6)
Since all life on Earth was formed or evolved around earth's natural or
"background" radiation, it is natural and even healthy for function.
In fact, inhabitants in a city in northern Iran (Ramsar- pictured at
right), receive an
annual natural radiation absorbed dose up to
260 mSv, over 13x higher than the 20 mSv
permitted for radiation workers- and have possibly lower rates of cancer.
These are levels above evacuation thresholds set in many industrial
countries, and Ramsar is hardly a nuclear wasteland! In fact, Ramsar
was the city where international wetland conservation treaties were signed.
1) What could be more green than energy the Earth has made itself? Believe it or not, 17 sites in Africa have had their own functioning fission nuclear reactors in the earth. They left evidence of their existence in the form of the safe natural nuclear waste they left behind.
2) The sun produces light and heat through nuclear fusion. Almost all of the energy on Earth
that drives climate systems, ecosystems,
hydrologic systems, etc., originates from the sun. Solar energy is
created at the core of the sun when hydrogen atoms are fused into helium
by nuclear fusion. So, solar energy is in reality a derivative of
nuclear energy!
3) The Earth's core is warmed by nuclear decay. The vast majority of the heat in Earth's interior—up to 90 percent—is
fueled by the decay of radioactive isotopes like Potassium-40,
Uranium-238, Uranium-235, and Thorium-232 contained within the mantle. These
isotopes radiate heat as they shed excess energy and move toward
stability. So, geothermal energy is also a form of natural nuclear energy.
4) I am radioactive and so are you. In fact, the Earth is radioactive, and so are every carbon-based plant and animal. Being around granite or eating a banana elevate your radiation exposure in a natural way at low levels. A banana is around 0.01 mrem of dose. Being within 50 miles of a nuclear plant for a year would give about 0.01 mrem, or a banana. Being within 50 miles of a coal plant is equal to about 3 bananas. Being in the Vatican for a year is estimated to equal to about 80,000 bananas-- because of all the granite/marble.
5) Nuclear energy produces 2/3rds of the emission- and carbon-free power in the United States. It doesn't dam up any waterways for fish and it doesn't disrupt migratory pathways for birds and bats! And, of its rated power, it produces over 90% of the time (it is around 10-30% for wind and solar).
6)
Since all life on Earth was formed or evolved around earth's natural or
"background" radiation, it is natural and even healthy for function.
In fact, inhabitants in a city in northern Iran (Ramsar- pictured at
right), receive an
annual natural radiation absorbed dose up to
260 mSv, over 13x higher than the 20 mSv
permitted for radiation workers- and have possibly lower rates of cancer.
These are levels above evacuation thresholds set in many industrial
countries, and Ramsar is hardly a nuclear wasteland! In fact, Ramsar
was the city where international wetland conservation treaties were signed.batteries × recent × renewables × storage
Distributed energy production and storage is the ultimate form to minimize losses and peaks on the grid. In an ideal world, solar and wind energy do not require fossil fuel backups (especially not as much as they do- see how carbon taxes won't help renewables here). In the ideal world, renewables can store when they produce, and then supply that stored energy when they do not produce to their capacity (which happens 70-90 percent of the time).
But this vision is destroyed by the reality that exists for the present and the foreseeable future. The fact is that batteries, even the most advanced technologies being worked on today:
This does not mean that we should not continue pursuing advanced storage materials and methods. Developments in battery technology are important on so many levels- from the potential to change the landscape in large scale energy generation down to the batteries used in cell phones.
As an example of the current state-of-the-art in battery storage technology, Duke Energy recently implemented a $44 million dollar 36 MW battery backup system for a wind farm in Notrees Texas, thanks to a matching government grant from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). For a sense of scale, 1 MW powers roughly 1,000 homes. It's not a particularly "green" battery, since it is a hazardous lead-acid type. It was promised to provide the 36 MW for 40 minutes at a time, but once implemented it was actually lasting for FIFTEEN MINUTES according to the Department of Energy. It isn't disclosed in the news releases, but the battery is designed for a 5-10 year lifetime. It is probably closer to 3 years in practice. Let's give it the benefit of the doubt of a full 10-year lifetime and a daily 15-minute full 36 MW discharge...
The cost of this electricity comes to over 134 cents/kWh, just for the battery cost alone, not including the cost of generation. This is higher than the residential cost for electricity in any state in the United States, including Hawaii. In fact, it is over 13 times the average U.S. cost, at 9.8 cents/kWh. And, what good does an additional 15 minutes of electricity do on a cloudy, windless day? It doesn't run hospitals, it doesn't keep your fridge cool, it can't supply essential government or business operations. At that cost, why not implement modular nuclear batteries like those proposed by UPower that run 24/7 for 30 years, and are estimated to cost about 22 cents/kWh? Meanwhile, those backup natural gas or coal generators are kicking on and pumping out carbon and other polluting emissions. The saving grace from our renewables ventures is cheap domestic natural gas-- saving our economy from the wide-reaching detrimental effects of expensive energy prices. Maybe the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act should have funded modular nuclear energy.
Given that batteries simply cannot provide a reasonable backup-- either by capacity or by cost measures, now or in any near future-- for wind and solar, why are we rushing to implement "renewables" that currently must require fossil fuel backup? Without storage, renewables are tied to fossil fuels, and that means carbon emissions and pollution. Nuclear is the only way to eliminate emissions and help the environment while being cost-effective and recyclable (see France).
But this vision is destroyed by the reality that exists for the present and the foreseeable future. The fact is that batteries, even the most advanced technologies being worked on today:
- -cannot supply even an hour's worth of electricity at a time at a large scale,
- -cannot last for reasonable lifetimes under repeated daily charging and discharging cycles,
- -use non-renewable materials and are not easily/cleanly recycled,
- -are outrageously expensive,
- -and have other problems such as difficulty smoothing out rapidly varying production, etc. For instance, a single cloud can wipe out solar production by 60% in 2 minutes.
This does not mean that we should not continue pursuing advanced storage materials and methods. Developments in battery technology are important on so many levels- from the potential to change the landscape in large scale energy generation down to the batteries used in cell phones.
As an example of the current state-of-the-art in battery storage technology, Duke Energy recently implemented a $44 million dollar 36 MW battery backup system for a wind farm in Notrees Texas, thanks to a matching government grant from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). For a sense of scale, 1 MW powers roughly 1,000 homes. It's not a particularly "green" battery, since it is a hazardous lead-acid type. It was promised to provide the 36 MW for 40 minutes at a time, but once implemented it was actually lasting for FIFTEEN MINUTES according to the Department of Energy. It isn't disclosed in the news releases, but the battery is designed for a 5-10 year lifetime. It is probably closer to 3 years in practice. Let's give it the benefit of the doubt of a full 10-year lifetime and a daily 15-minute full 36 MW discharge...
The cost of this electricity comes to over 134 cents/kWh, just for the battery cost alone, not including the cost of generation. This is higher than the residential cost for electricity in any state in the United States, including Hawaii. In fact, it is over 13 times the average U.S. cost, at 9.8 cents/kWh. And, what good does an additional 15 minutes of electricity do on a cloudy, windless day? It doesn't run hospitals, it doesn't keep your fridge cool, it can't supply essential government or business operations. At that cost, why not implement modular nuclear batteries like those proposed by UPower that run 24/7 for 30 years, and are estimated to cost about 22 cents/kWh? Meanwhile, those backup natural gas or coal generators are kicking on and pumping out carbon and other polluting emissions. The saving grace from our renewables ventures is cheap domestic natural gas-- saving our economy from the wide-reaching detrimental effects of expensive energy prices. Maybe the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act should have funded modular nuclear energy.
Given that batteries simply cannot provide a reasonable backup-- either by capacity or by cost measures, now or in any near future-- for wind and solar, why are we rushing to implement "renewables" that currently must require fossil fuel backup? Without storage, renewables are tied to fossil fuels, and that means carbon emissions and pollution. Nuclear is the only way to eliminate emissions and help the environment while being cost-effective and recyclable (see France).
FF
Presenting March's wacky friday funday with submissions sent in by Readers Like You.
sent in by Giovanni- Heart Attack Grill Claims New Victim
sent in by Laura McNair- Sinkholes, a Youtube playlist
From Popular Science- "Wild Boars Menace Germany. Could It Happen Here?"
-or-
Wild Boars: "The Syphilis of Agriculture" (translated from German)
Sent in by Rasmus Kiehl, MD
"Responding to your call for more examples of thingsworsethannuclearpower, here is a cautionary tale from Germany. The increase in biogas generation has resulted in a massive expansion of corn as feedstock. Consequently, the wild boar population has exploded: more corn means more food for the piggies. The biogas industry denies this connection of course but it is obvious to almost everybody else, including local politicians. There is certainly no way to deny the existence of "corn deserts" (monocultures).
About Friday Funday:
For those unfamiliar, the basis why most of these are "worsethan" is for a number of reasons. Among them are that there have been no deaths from nuclear power due to radiation in the history of over 50 years of commercial nuclear power in the United States, that there have been the fewest amount of deaths/injuries compared to all other energy sources, no deaths worldwide due to nuclear power since Chernobyl (almost 30 years ago), there have been no emissions due to nuclear power (ever), an incredibly small amount of fuel required (roughly 1/400,000th that of coal) and an otherwise impeccable safety record. For reference see "How Deadly is your Kilowatt" on Forbes.
sent in by Giovanni- Heart Attack Grill Claims New Victim  |
| Freshmen: Life as Maggots in Bacon (Google translate from German) |
From Popular Science- "Wild Boars Menace Germany. Could It Happen Here?"
-or-
Wild Boars: "The Syphilis of Agriculture" (translated from German)
Sent in by Rasmus Kiehl, MD
"Responding to your call for more examples of thingsworsethannuclearpower, here is a cautionary tale from Germany. The increase in biogas generation has resulted in a massive expansion of corn as feedstock. Consequently, the wild boar population has exploded: more corn means more food for the piggies. The biogas industry denies this connection of course but it is obvious to almost everybody else, including local politicians. There is certainly no way to deny the existence of "corn deserts" (monocultures).
About Friday Funday:
For those unfamiliar, the basis why most of these are "worsethan" is for a number of reasons. Among them are that there have been no deaths from nuclear power due to radiation in the history of over 50 years of commercial nuclear power in the United States, that there have been the fewest amount of deaths/injuries compared to all other energy sources, no deaths worldwide due to nuclear power since Chernobyl (almost 30 years ago), there have been no emissions due to nuclear power (ever), an incredibly small amount of fuel required (roughly 1/400,000th that of coal) and an otherwise impeccable safety record. For reference see "How Deadly is your Kilowatt" on Forbes.
carbon tax × CO2 × recent × renewables × solar × wind
A carbon tax is getting a lot of attention over the past few weeks. The odd part is that it may increase energy costs while not necessarily leveling the playing field for renewables. In fact, studies have shown that a carbon tax would hurt wind possibly more than some fossil fuels.
Because wind only blows sometimes, and the sun only shines sometimes, any solar or wind installation requires backup generation, usually natural gas or coal. While natural gas produces less carbon emissions than coal, it is not purely "clean." Natural gas produces about half the carbon emissions of coal. You can also check out the additional economic costs of wind due to backup power outlined here.
And, when these fossil fuel backup generators cycle on and off-- as needed in a backup capacity for an intermittant renewable-- both natural gas and coal are necessarily less efficient and produce even more carbon than usual. In fact, studies performed by Argonne National Lab (which Obama just visited last week to talk energy) showed that wind did not meet carbon emissions guidelines because of the inefficient way it forced backup sources to work.
To recap:
Solar or wind installations = fossil fuel installations.
Fossil fuel backup = carbon emissions.
Since wind and solar (and any intermittent renewable) necessarily require backup, the carbon tax on that backup means a detriment to wind. From the Chicago Policy Review only a few months ago:
It is a good thing that we have a cheap supply of domestic natural gas, which does burn cleaner than coal. However, the only way to produce significant amounts of reliable carbon-free energy that is technology-ready now is through nuclear energy.
Because wind only blows sometimes, and the sun only shines sometimes, any solar or wind installation requires backup generation, usually natural gas or coal. While natural gas produces less carbon emissions than coal, it is not purely "clean." Natural gas produces about half the carbon emissions of coal. You can also check out the additional economic costs of wind due to backup power outlined here.
And, when these fossil fuel backup generators cycle on and off-- as needed in a backup capacity for an intermittant renewable-- both natural gas and coal are necessarily less efficient and produce even more carbon than usual. In fact, studies performed by Argonne National Lab (which Obama just visited last week to talk energy) showed that wind did not meet carbon emissions guidelines because of the inefficient way it forced backup sources to work.
To recap:
Solar or wind installations = fossil fuel installations.
Fossil fuel backup = carbon emissions.
 |
| source: windtoons |
Since wind and solar (and any intermittent renewable) necessarily require backup, the carbon tax on that backup means a detriment to wind. From the Chicago Policy Review only a few months ago:
In a new working paper from INSEAD, “Strategic Investment in Renewable Energy Sources,” researchers Sam Aflaki and Serguei Netessine were surprised to find that taxing carbon emissions from fossil fuel-based electricity generation did not necessarily improve the long-term competitiveness of wind power investments. The researchers found that intermittency issues related to wind-generated power are... too common to allow wind generation to price independently of the fossil fuel market.Batteries unfortunately can only provide backup for wind or solar for about an hour at a time, even at costs of millions of dollars (see Duke energy's $44 million wind batteries)... and batteries have their own environmental impact.
It is a good thing that we have a cheap supply of domestic natural gas, which does burn cleaner than coal. However, the only way to produce significant amounts of reliable carbon-free energy that is technology-ready now is through nuclear energy.
china × fukushima × Germany × Japan × LNT × natural gas × natural radiation × uranium × Vermont Yankee
It's a historic week to host the carnival-- just a week after our first year anniversary, and right upon the second year anniversary of the Japanese earthquakes and Fukushima incidents. We are proud to host the carnival on this week which includes an amazing variety of posts from leading experts and an exceptional historical significance.
From ANS Nuclear Cafe:
Fukushima Two Years Later
Scenarios for future electricity generation suggest that between now and 2050 nuclear power could supply between 15% and 49% (12 and 38 GW) of the total. To meet the UK's legally binding target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 it is likely that between 20 and 38 GW of nuclear power will be needed.
In 2011, the Vermont state senate voted to close down Vermont Yankee. In 2012, federal judge Gavan Murtha ruled that the reason for their vote was the concerns with nuclear safety. Since nuclear safety is regulated solely by the federal government, not state legislatures, Murtha ruled against the state. The state appealed the ruling. Nuclear opponents claimed they had been "out-lawyered," so the state hired a more high-powered attorney for its appeal. However, if the senators weren't voting on nuclear safety, what was the basis for their vote? The new attorney argued the senators were voting on economics. To bolster his argument, he cited two facts about Vermont Yankee: it provides low-cost power, and it will share money with the state utilities if prices rise on the grid. These facts are completely correct, but most people would say these are economic arguments for keeping the plant, not shutting it down.
The Fastlinks:
- Germany's Nuclear Blind Spot- from Nuclear Tourist
- Fukushima at Two Years- from Nuke Power Talk
- Fukushima Two Years Later- from ANS Nuclear Cafe
- Japan Correctly Takes Umbrage with WHO Risk Estimates- from Hiroshima Syndrome
- China to Start Exporting their CAP1400- from Next Big Future
- Cameco Will Start Up the World's 2nd Largest Uranium Project- from Next Big Future
- Germany's Renewables Increase lags Nuclear Phaseout and Leads to Increased Cost ($1.3 Trillion), Coal Use, Pollution (surprise, surprise!)- From Next Big Future
- UK Science and Technology Committee Calls for Tripling of UK Nuclear Power in Order to Meet Legally Binding 2050 Emissions Requirements- from Next Big Future
- Bill McKibbin is Not Serious about Climate Change- from Atomic Insights
- SanOnofre Steam Generators: an Honest Error Driven by a Search for Perfection- from Atomic Insights
- It Was Safety, Safety, Safety... Lawyers Can't Rescue a Weak Case- from Yes Vermont Yankee
- Filtered Vents and Boiling Water Reactors: It’s Not About the Costs- from NEI Nuclear Notes
- Why Nuclear Energy is Critical to American Energy Diversity- from NEI Nuclear Notes
- San Onofre: the MHI Document Release and What it Really Means- from Atomic Power Review
- America's Two-pronged Anti-proliferation Policy- from Canadian Energy Issues
From Nuclear Tourist:
"...why is it that when nature heats up water with
radioactive materials it’s good, but when humans heat up water with radioactive
materials it’s bad?" As a part of the Nuclear
Tourist Blog at the Nuclear Literacy Project, Suzy Hobbs Baker offers insights
into the historical and cultural context of the German nuclear phase out. Baker
suggests, "that
we should all try to understand and be compassionate about their perspective
whether we agree with it or not."
From Nuke Power Talk:
Gail
Marcus looks at some of the larger impacts of Fukushima in her blog at Nuke
Power Talk this week. She points out that that the sudden shutdowns of
nuclear power plants in Japan and Germany have had real consequences.
Although both countries seemed to keep functioning, and some have claimed
that showed that nuclear power wasn't "needed," she shows why that
isn't so, and points to the very real health and economic consequences of the
shutdowns.
From Canadian Power Issues:
“Assessing America’s two-pronged
anti-proliferation policy: failures, successes, and a way forward”
U.S. policy for preventing nuclear weapons
proliferation is a two-pronged work in progress. Prong One is essentially
intellectual property protection: blocking certain other countries from access
to technologies and processes that can help make explosives and bombs. Prong
Two is dissuasive diplomacy: using various forms of diplomatic pressure, up to
and including military force, to dissuade countries from making, getting, or
keeping weapons. Steve Aplin argues that only Prong Two has been successful;
Prong One has been an unqualified, and unlamented, failure.
Fukushima Two Years Later
As we approach the two year anniversary of the Great East
Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, it’s important to look back and ask honest and
direct questions about the subsequent nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi and
what it means today.
What do we know now that we didn’t in the early days?
Could the accident have been prevented? What are we doing to ensure something
similar never happens again? What about the radiation exposure to the public?
Will Davis with an authoritative account and answering of
these and many other important questions.
From the Hiroshima Syndrome/Fukushima Commentary:
The Japanese government is less than happy with the recent WHO
risk estimates. They feel WHO’s results are purely hypothetical and can only
increase the wide-spread fear of radiation infecting millions of their people.
WHO ignored other studies out of Japan and within the United Nation's family
itself. Japan's might be the first government to ever challenge WHO's
methodology. They are entirely correct in criticizing WHO.
From Next Big Future:
 |
| The construction site of the Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant. Geng Yuhe / For China Dail |
Officials behind China's self-developed nuclear reactor,
known as the CAP1400, expect to sign its first overseas orders for the
technology this year, most likely from South America or Asia.
Sun Qin, the chairman of China National Nuclear Corp told China Daily in an exclusive interview, that the deals could seal should the construction of a CAP1400 reactor in China begin by the end of this year, after approval from the State Council.
Sun Qin, the chairman of China National Nuclear Corp told China Daily in an exclusive interview, that the deals could seal should the construction of a CAP1400 reactor in China begin by the end of this year, after approval from the State Council.
The Chinese technology is attractive because of
the “favorable and unconditional” credit conditions offered to other nations.
Cameco Corp. is just months away from opening its Cigar Lake
uranium project, the world’s second-largest high-grade
uranium deposit, more than thirty years after it was discovered and just as
global prices for the nuclear fuel show promise of a rebound.
“We’re on track with Cigar Lake. We said we’d be starting the mining in mid-2013 and we will and we’ll have first production from the mill in 2013,” said Tim Gitzel, chief executive officer of the Saskatchewan-based owner of uranium projects in Canada, the United States, Australia and Kazakhstan
“We’re on track with Cigar Lake. We said we’d be starting the mining in mid-2013 and we will and we’ll have first production from the mill in 2013,” said Tim Gitzel, chief executive officer of the Saskatchewan-based owner of uranium projects in Canada, the United States, Australia and Kazakhstan
In an in-depth interview with Frankfurter
Allgemeine, Altmaier said that costs for the plans to reform and restructure
the country's energy sector by the end of the 2030s could reach €1 trillion
($1.3 trillion). Feed-in tariffs - guaranteed electricity prices designed to support the adoption of renewables such as wind
and photovoltaics - would alone cost some €680 billion ($910 billion) by 2020.
That figure could increase further if the market price of electricity fell, he
warned.
The shift to renewables is lagging the phase out of nuclear energy and that is being made up by increased coal usage. Increased coal usage is increasing pollution. The current pace of renewable addition will last for many years.
The shift to renewables is lagging the phase out of nuclear energy and that is being made up by increased coal usage. Increased coal usage is increasing pollution. The current pace of renewable addition will last for many years.
A UK Science and Technology Committee Report, Nuclear
Research and Development Capabilities, calls for at least
tripling the current number of nuclear reactors (16 reactors now) in order to
meet legally binding emission targets for 2050. The eventual number could be
much higher because the new unconventional reactors are expected to have a
smaller generating capacity.
Scenarios for future electricity generation suggest that between now and 2050 nuclear power could supply between 15% and 49% (12 and 38 GW) of the total. To meet the UK's legally binding target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 it is likely that between 20 and 38 GW of nuclear power will be needed.
From Atomic Insights:
Is
Bill McKibben really serious about climate change?
Andy
Revkin recently published a post on his Dot Earth blog titled A
Communications Scholar Analyzes Bill McKibben’s Path on Climate. In one of
the videos that is embedded in the article, Matthew Nisbet describes Bill
McKibben as a public intellectual and compares his activism on climate to that
of Rachel Carson on the effects of pesticide chemicals.
In
this post, Rod Adams makes his case that McKibben is simply not serious
enough about climate change to overcome an imposed phobia or take the time
to learn just why he and his followers have been taught to have
that fear.
Does
Bill McKibben ever stop to think about how his reluctance to use nuclear
energy plays into the hands of the fossil fuel companies whose behavior he
is trying to alter through his divestment campaign?
Rod
Adams also published a detailed analysis of MHI's root cause analysis of the
steam generator leaks at San Onofre. The report, in a redacted form, was just
made publicly available on Friday afternoon (March 9, 2013).
From Yes, Vermont Yankee:
In 2011, the Vermont state senate voted to close down Vermont Yankee. In 2012, federal judge Gavan Murtha ruled that the reason for their vote was the concerns with nuclear safety. Since nuclear safety is regulated solely by the federal government, not state legislatures, Murtha ruled against the state. The state appealed the ruling. Nuclear opponents claimed they had been "out-lawyered," so the state hired a more high-powered attorney for its appeal. However, if the senators weren't voting on nuclear safety, what was the basis for their vote? The new attorney argued the senators were voting on economics. To bolster his argument, he cited two facts about Vermont Yankee: it provides low-cost power, and it will share money with the state utilities if prices rise on the grid. These facts are completely correct, but most people would say these are economic arguments for keeping the plant, not shutting it down.
 |
| Bill Mohl testifies before the Energy and Power Subcommittee |
From NEI Nuclear
Notes:
Filtered Vents and Boiling Water Reactors: It’s Not About the Costs
Two NEI staffers attempt to set
the record straight on the industry position on filtered vents.
Why Nuclear Energy is Critical to American Energy Diversity
Taking a closer look at House testimony from Entergy
executive William Mohl, and how the shale gas boom won't last forever.
From Atomic Power Review:
Will Davis bounces the newly released MHI Root
Cause Analysis documents and the letter to the NRC by Senator Boxer / Rep.
Markey against each other to see what falls out. Detailed explanation of
the causes; many background / supporting links.
