Yuichi Tonozuka was named president of the newly formed Japan Atomic Energy Agency on July 22. Tonozuka had been president of the Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute since January 2004. He will assume his new position Oct. 1.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fusion, Nuclear Fuel, Nuclear Fision, Nuclear Winter, Nuclear Equation, World Nuclear Association, Uranium Nuclear, The Nuclear Family, Define Nuclear
Friday, 29 July 2005
Nuclear Energy Industry Transitions
Yuichi Tonozuka was named president of the newly formed Japan Atomic Energy Agency on July 22. Tonozuka had been president of the Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute since January 2004. He will assume his new position Oct. 1.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
The NEI Clip File
Here are some of the news clips we're reading at NEI today.
The energy bill is the first thing on everyone's mind, with the Senate approving the legislation by a vote of 74-26:
The energy bill is the first thing on everyone's mind, with the Senate approving the legislation by a vote of 74-26:
The Senate action a day after the bill breezed through the House completed the first major overhaul of the nation's energy policies in 13 years. The White House said in advance of passage that Bush looked forward to signing it into law, possibly next week.In other news, NB Power's Point Lepreau nuclear power station in New Brunswick, Canada, has been slated for refurbishment:
...The bill provides $14.5 billion in tax breaks and potentially billions more in loan guarantees and other subsidies to encourage oil and gas drilling, improve natural gas and electric transmission lines, build new nuclear power reactors and expand renewable energy sources, especially construction of wind turbines.
Its cost, put at $12.3 billion after revenue offsets, is nearly twice the $6.7 billion price tag the White House had sought.
...The bill's cost was overridden by its widespread political support, in part because it includes something for virtually everyone.
The Province of New Brunswick will proceed with a C$1.4 billion refurbishment of NB Power's Point Lepreau nuclear power station with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd as the general contractor, Premier Bernard Lord said at a news conference Friday.TXU Corp. announced its plans to build a big coal-fired power plant in the state that could reduce emissions that help produce acid rain and ozone:
"This is the lowest cost option for the ratepayers of New Brunswick. It makes good economic and environmental sense, while keeping our energy sources diversified," Lord said.
The province is seeking to generate a third of its future energy from nuclear power, a third from renewable sources and a third from existing fossil and hydro sources, Lord said.
NB Power and AECL will start the detailed engineering and procurement this summer, with completion expected by March 2008. The construction of temporary facilities and waste storage will begin in April 2006.
TXU, which operates power plants fueled by coal, natural gas and nuclear energy, on Wednesday filed for an air permit for the 1,720-megawatt power plant with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, said TXU spokesman Chris Schein.Come back Monday morning for more news from the NEI Clip File.
...The plant would burn Texas lignite coal to produce electricity and use selective catalytic reduction -- SCR -- technology to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide, which contributes to the formation of acid rain and ozone.
The NEI Clip File
Here are some of the news clips we're reading at NEI today.
The energy bill is the first thing on everyone's mind, with the Senate approving the legislation by a vote of 74-26:
The energy bill is the first thing on everyone's mind, with the Senate approving the legislation by a vote of 74-26:
The Senate action a day after the bill breezed through the House completed the first major overhaul of the nation's energy policies in 13 years. The White House said in advance of passage that Bush looked forward to signing it into law, possibly next week.In other news, NB Power's Point Lepreau nuclear power station in New Brunswick, Canada, has been slated for refurbishment:
...The bill provides $14.5 billion in tax breaks and potentially billions more in loan guarantees and other subsidies to encourage oil and gas drilling, improve natural gas and electric transmission lines, build new nuclear power reactors and expand renewable energy sources, especially construction of wind turbines.
Its cost, put at $12.3 billion after revenue offsets, is nearly twice the $6.7 billion price tag the White House had sought.
...The bill's cost was overridden by its widespread political support, in part because it includes something for virtually everyone.
The Province of New Brunswick will proceed with a C$1.4 billion refurbishment of NB Power's Point Lepreau nuclear power station with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd as the general contractor, Premier Bernard Lord said at a news conference Friday.TXU Corp. announced its plans to build a big coal-fired power plant in the state that could reduce emissions that help produce acid rain and ozone:
"This is the lowest cost option for the ratepayers of New Brunswick. It makes good economic and environmental sense, while keeping our energy sources diversified," Lord said.
The province is seeking to generate a third of its future energy from nuclear power, a third from renewable sources and a third from existing fossil and hydro sources, Lord said.
NB Power and AECL will start the detailed engineering and procurement this summer, with completion expected by March 2008. The construction of temporary facilities and waste storage will begin in April 2006.
TXU, which operates power plants fueled by coal, natural gas and nuclear energy, on Wednesday filed for an air permit for the 1,720-megawatt power plant with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, said TXU spokesman Chris Schein.Come back Monday morning for more news from the NEI Clip File.
...The plant would burn Texas lignite coal to produce electricity and use selective catalytic reduction -- SCR -- technology to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide, which contributes to the formation of acid rain and ozone.
Energy Bill to the Senate Floor
Roll call vote scheduled for 10:45 a.m. More later . . .
UPDATE: C-Span 2 is carrying the vote. Click here for Real Media, or here for Windows Media. For more detail on H.R. 6, click here.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Plenty of us are packed into conference rooms or watching on our computers waiting for history to be made. More soon . . .
REAL-TIME UPDATE, 11:45 a.m. EST: Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) has raised a budget point of order -- a procedural move designed to stop the bill before a final vote. Next, the Senate will vote to waive the point of order, with 60 votes required to move to a final roll call vote. Our folks in Government Affairs anticipate that we'll get those 60 votes, and move to a final roll call vote in the next hour. Stay tuned.
REAL-TIME UPDATE, 12:53 p.m. EST: The Senate has voted 71-29 to waive the budget point of order and is now voting on passage of the Energy Bill Conference Report. We'll post the final count right here.
UPDATE: The Senate voted 74-26 to pass the Energy Bill Conference Report. Check back soon for a detailed breakdown.
UPDATE: C-Span 2 is carrying the vote. Click here for Real Media, or here for Windows Media. For more detail on H.R. 6, click here.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Plenty of us are packed into conference rooms or watching on our computers waiting for history to be made. More soon . . .
REAL-TIME UPDATE, 11:45 a.m. EST: Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) has raised a budget point of order -- a procedural move designed to stop the bill before a final vote. Next, the Senate will vote to waive the point of order, with 60 votes required to move to a final roll call vote. Our folks in Government Affairs anticipate that we'll get those 60 votes, and move to a final roll call vote in the next hour. Stay tuned.
REAL-TIME UPDATE, 12:53 p.m. EST: The Senate has voted 71-29 to waive the budget point of order and is now voting on passage of the Energy Bill Conference Report. We'll post the final count right here.
UPDATE: The Senate voted 74-26 to pass the Energy Bill Conference Report. Check back soon for a detailed breakdown.
Energy Bill to the Senate Floor
Roll call vote scheduled for 10:45 a.m. More later . . .
UPDATE: C-Span 2 is carrying the vote. Click here for Real Media, or here for Windows Media. For more detail on H.R. 6, click here.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Plenty of us are packed into conference rooms or watching on our computers waiting for history to be made. More soon . . .
REAL-TIME UPDATE, 11:45 a.m. EST: Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) has raised a budget point of order -- a procedural move designed to stop the bill before a final vote. Next, the Senate will vote to waive the point of order, with 60 votes required to move to a final roll call vote. Our folks in Government Affairs anticipate that we'll get those 60 votes, and move to a final roll call vote in the next hour. Stay tuned.
REAL-TIME UPDATE, 12:53 p.m. EST: The Senate has voted 71-29 to waive the budget point of order and is now voting on passage of the Energy Bill Conference Report. We'll post the final count right here.
UPDATE: The Senate voted 74-26 to pass the Energy Bill Conference Report. Check back soon for a detailed breakdown.
UPDATE: C-Span 2 is carrying the vote. Click here for Real Media, or here for Windows Media. For more detail on H.R. 6, click here.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Plenty of us are packed into conference rooms or watching on our computers waiting for history to be made. More soon . . .
REAL-TIME UPDATE, 11:45 a.m. EST: Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) has raised a budget point of order -- a procedural move designed to stop the bill before a final vote. Next, the Senate will vote to waive the point of order, with 60 votes required to move to a final roll call vote. Our folks in Government Affairs anticipate that we'll get those 60 votes, and move to a final roll call vote in the next hour. Stay tuned.
REAL-TIME UPDATE, 12:53 p.m. EST: The Senate has voted 71-29 to waive the budget point of order and is now voting on passage of the Energy Bill Conference Report. We'll post the final count right here.
UPDATE: The Senate voted 74-26 to pass the Energy Bill Conference Report. Check back soon for a detailed breakdown.
Thursday, 28 July 2005
Another Blogger For Nuclear Energy
In Scotland, blogger Neil Craig has decided to point out some hard energy truths to the editors of his local newspaper, the West End Mail:
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Your 13th July edition contained an item about a lobby group, the Sustainable Energy Partnership, approving our local MP's support of micro-generation (essentially covering our rooftops with windmills).For one of our previous posts on the situation in Scotland, click here.
55% of Scotland's electricity is provided by 2 nuclear plants, the more extensive of which, Hunterston, is to close in 2011.
Windmills only provide 0.3% of our power & micro-generation , as the name suggests, can do only a small fraction of even that. This is not a serious solution.
Nuclear is reliable, non-polluting, CO2 free & at 2.3p per unit (or less for new reactors) easily the most economical power source.
According to Help the Aged figures 24,000 pensioners die each year in the UK from fuel poverty.
If we do not replace our current nuclear plants with at least equal capacity we are going to have massive blackouts & even more deaths.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Another Blogger For Nuclear Energy
In Scotland, blogger Neil Craig has decided to point out some hard energy truths to the editors of his local newspaper, the West End Mail:
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Your 13th July edition contained an item about a lobby group, the Sustainable Energy Partnership, approving our local MP's support of micro-generation (essentially covering our rooftops with windmills).For one of our previous posts on the situation in Scotland, click here.
55% of Scotland's electricity is provided by 2 nuclear plants, the more extensive of which, Hunterston, is to close in 2011.
Windmills only provide 0.3% of our power & micro-generation , as the name suggests, can do only a small fraction of even that. This is not a serious solution.
Nuclear is reliable, non-polluting, CO2 free & at 2.3p per unit (or less for new reactors) easily the most economical power source.
According to Help the Aged figures 24,000 pensioners die each year in the UK from fuel poverty.
If we do not replace our current nuclear plants with at least equal capacity we are going to have massive blackouts & even more deaths.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
The NEI Afternoon Clip File
Here are some of the news clips we're reading at NEI this afternoon.
Of course, the energy bill is the primary newsmaker today. Here's the Associated Press report:
Come back tomorrow morning for more news from the NEI Clip File.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Of course, the energy bill is the primary newsmaker today. Here's the Associated Press report:
The bill was approved 275-156. Congress now awaits action by the Senate, probably on Friday. The White House said President Bush looks forward to signing it into law.The Wall Street Journal takes up the nuclear angle:
...The 1,725-page bill, the product of weeks of compromise between widely different versions approved by the two chambers earlier this year, would provide $14.5 billion in energy tax breaks, much of it to traditional energy companies. It also provides money for promoting renewable energy sources and new energy technologies and measures to revitalize the nuclear power industry.
The energy bill nearing passage in Congress could be the best news the nuclear-power industry has seen in many years. The question now is whether it will be enough good news to produce what the industry and the Bush administration both want: a genuine revival of nuclear power.While the energy bill is certainly dominating the news, a few other things are worth noting, like the reported Asia-Pacific climate pact:
The US, which has joined hands with India, Australia, China, Japan and South Korea to accelerate development of cleaner and efficient technologies, Thursday said the focus will be on investment opportunities.The Bush administration's goal with the pact is to pursue voluntary, rather than mandatory actions:
"This partnership will focus on voluntary measures taken by these six countries in the Asia-Pacific region to create new investment opportunities, build local capacity and remove barriers to the introduction of clean, more efficient technologies," a release issued by the US embassy here said.
The Kyoto pact, which the United States has rejected, requires that industrial countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The Bush administration prefers to addresses climate change through voluntary actions and by emphasizing the need to develop technologies that cut emissions and capture carbon.On a "lighter" note, click here to read about a floating plant -- and we're not talking about a lily pad.
...The U.S. has been eager to find ways to get China, India and other rapidly industrializing nations to deal with climate change.
White House officials say that one problem with the Kyoto pact is that it does not require China and India, whose growing energy needs also will mean growing greenhouse pollution, to commit to emission reductions.
Come back tomorrow morning for more news from the NEI Clip File.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
The NEI Afternoon Clip File
Here are some of the news clips we're reading at NEI this afternoon.
Of course, the energy bill is the primary newsmaker today. Here's the Associated Press report:
Come back tomorrow morning for more news from the NEI Clip File.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Of course, the energy bill is the primary newsmaker today. Here's the Associated Press report:
The bill was approved 275-156. Congress now awaits action by the Senate, probably on Friday. The White House said President Bush looks forward to signing it into law.The Wall Street Journal takes up the nuclear angle:
...The 1,725-page bill, the product of weeks of compromise between widely different versions approved by the two chambers earlier this year, would provide $14.5 billion in energy tax breaks, much of it to traditional energy companies. It also provides money for promoting renewable energy sources and new energy technologies and measures to revitalize the nuclear power industry.
The energy bill nearing passage in Congress could be the best news the nuclear-power industry has seen in many years. The question now is whether it will be enough good news to produce what the industry and the Bush administration both want: a genuine revival of nuclear power.While the energy bill is certainly dominating the news, a few other things are worth noting, like the reported Asia-Pacific climate pact:
The US, which has joined hands with India, Australia, China, Japan and South Korea to accelerate development of cleaner and efficient technologies, Thursday said the focus will be on investment opportunities.The Bush administration's goal with the pact is to pursue voluntary, rather than mandatory actions:
"This partnership will focus on voluntary measures taken by these six countries in the Asia-Pacific region to create new investment opportunities, build local capacity and remove barriers to the introduction of clean, more efficient technologies," a release issued by the US embassy here said.
The Kyoto pact, which the United States has rejected, requires that industrial countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The Bush administration prefers to addresses climate change through voluntary actions and by emphasizing the need to develop technologies that cut emissions and capture carbon.On a "lighter" note, click here to read about a floating plant -- and we're not talking about a lily pad.
...The U.S. has been eager to find ways to get China, India and other rapidly industrializing nations to deal with climate change.
White House officials say that one problem with the Kyoto pact is that it does not require China and India, whose growing energy needs also will mean growing greenhouse pollution, to commit to emission reductions.
Come back tomorrow morning for more news from the NEI Clip File.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Bangor Daily News: "Nuclear Power is Coming Back"
An editorial titled "Nuclear Power Is Coming Back" appears in today's edition of the Bangor Daily News. Here are the highlights:
This nation cannot go on squandering its limited natural gas supplies on unlimited burning of gas for electricity production when nuclear power is so much more economical. Nor can Americans afford to burn more and more coal when nuclear power plants are much cleaner and emit no global warming gases.Furthermore:
...If we hope to have the additional electricity and even maintain the percentage of power we are now receiving from emission-free sources, more nuclear plants will be essential. But if we want to improve the percentage of clean power, it will take a lot more nuclear capacity.
Somehow Americans need to understand how fortunate we are to have nuclear power available - how clean, safe and reliable, as well as efficient, it is. For they will never guess it from the negative media coverage nuclear power has received in recent years and the long hiatus in orders for U.S. nuclear plants. And unless they know, they can hardly be expected to press for a new generation of nuclear power plants as an essential part of a sane and balanced energy system that will benefit our air quality and the national economy.Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Nuclear power is coming back.
Pass it along.
Bangor Daily News: "Nuclear Power is Coming Back"
An editorial titled "Nuclear Power Is Coming Back" appears in today's edition of the Bangor Daily News. Here are the highlights:
This nation cannot go on squandering its limited natural gas supplies on unlimited burning of gas for electricity production when nuclear power is so much more economical. Nor can Americans afford to burn more and more coal when nuclear power plants are much cleaner and emit no global warming gases.Furthermore:
...If we hope to have the additional electricity and even maintain the percentage of power we are now receiving from emission-free sources, more nuclear plants will be essential. But if we want to improve the percentage of clean power, it will take a lot more nuclear capacity.
Somehow Americans need to understand how fortunate we are to have nuclear power available - how clean, safe and reliable, as well as efficient, it is. For they will never guess it from the negative media coverage nuclear power has received in recent years and the long hiatus in orders for U.S. nuclear plants. And unless they know, they can hardly be expected to press for a new generation of nuclear power plants as an essential part of a sane and balanced energy system that will benefit our air quality and the national economy.Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Nuclear power is coming back.
Pass it along.
'New Math' and the New Economics Foundation
Recently, the New Economics Foundation, published a study examining energy choices in an age of global warming. But when you take a closer look at the study and its methodology, it's easy to surmise that the authors already knew what their conclusions would be before they ever started crunching the numbers.
Here’s NEF’s summary of nuclear in the study:
Now let's turn to the issue of whether nuclear capacity can be built quickly enough to effect climate change:
Yet renewables, which account for only a quarter of the emission free electricity in the US are expected to scale up electrical production so quickly, that they'll be able to save the world in just a decade. It's also important to note that the vast majority of renewable capacity is actually hydropower, a type of renewable energy that may very well have reached its practical limit.
The simple fact is that electricity demand will increase so quickly -- as much as 50 percent in the U.S. over the next 20 years -- that we're going to need to rely on each and every source of energy in order to keep up. That's why it has always been the position of the Nuclear Energy Institute that nuclear energy needs to be a part of a diverse energy portfolio.
Once again, we see anti-nuclear extremists creating the same old straw man, and setting up the same old false choice: That the world needs to choose between nuclear energy and renewables. But any serious observer of the energy business knows that we're going to need nuclear energy, renewables and other sources of energy like clean coal if we're going to both protect the environment and spur economic growth at home and internationally.
Now let’s turn to the issue of expense, an area where this "radical think tank" uses a radical and unsupported methodology to massage the figures.
The costs presented in the study primarily cite data from the U.K.'s Performance and Innovation Unit. This group (aka the Strategy Unit) conducted an energy review back in 2002 to help the UK policymakers frame map out that nation's future energy infrastructure. As I scrolled to the bottom of the page of the energy review, I found a table on what the estimated costs of every fuel are in 2020. According to these figures, nuclear will be competitive with every other fuel source.
Which leads us to my biggest beef with the NEF study. The NEF uses the numbers from the PIU to put in their own table on page 39. But what they then do is create their own estimate of what nuclear really costs, and refuse to apply the same econometric model to any other fuel -- including renewables.
In other words, the study picks the worst case scenario for nuclear and the best case scenario for renewables. In serious economic research circles that's fundamentally dishonest, and not a sound basis for guiding international energy and climate change policy.
Here’s a lesson from Data 101 that every freshman economics student understands: Stick to one and only one source when talking about the same data! For the study to be fair, the same methodology used for nuclear should apply to all other energy sources. Doing anything else is just a bald attempt to massage the numbers and decieve people who don't take a close look at how the study has been conducted.
Now for the last part of the sentence with nuclear being “too limited.” This is the best.
Here’s NEF’s summary of nuclear in the study:
Nuclear power is being promoted as the answer to climate change and energy insecurity. But, as a response to global warming, it is too slow, too expensive and too limited. And in an age of terrorist threats, it is more of a security risk than a solution. Instead, the characteristics of a flexible, safe, secure and climate friendly energy supply system apply to renewable energy. In comparison, it leaves no toxic legacy and is abundant and cheap to harvest both in the UK and globally.Let's start with the assertion that nuclear is “too slow, too expensive and too limited” to help battle climate change. The study states on page 35:
The PIU [Performance and Innovation Unit] suggests a planning/construction period in the order of a decade for each nuclear plant – a figure that may prove optimistic in the light of the controversy of planning applications and past experience of delays in construction.It's clear that estimate is based on the experience in the U.S. post-Three Mile Island when anti-nuclear activists used the legal system as a weapon against new plant construction. Today, with a streamlined review process in place at the NRC (the breakout of the Early Site Permit: ESP and the Combined Construction and Operating License: COL), the US nuclear industry estimates that five years is a more accurate estimate -- especially when looking at current construction timetables in Asia.
Now let's turn to the issue of whether nuclear capacity can be built quickly enough to effect climate change:
The earliest that new nuclear capacity could be introduced means it can’t tackle climate change. Twenty years was considered to be the earliest that a new generation of nuclear reactors of this type could be introduced, whereas the scientific community say that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is urgent with the next decade.So renewables (what NEF offers as the solution) need to come to the rescue within the next decade to save us from disaster. However, we know that nuclear energy avoids more emissions than all sources of renewable energy in the U.S. combined.
Yet renewables, which account for only a quarter of the emission free electricity in the US are expected to scale up electrical production so quickly, that they'll be able to save the world in just a decade. It's also important to note that the vast majority of renewable capacity is actually hydropower, a type of renewable energy that may very well have reached its practical limit.
The simple fact is that electricity demand will increase so quickly -- as much as 50 percent in the U.S. over the next 20 years -- that we're going to need to rely on each and every source of energy in order to keep up. That's why it has always been the position of the Nuclear Energy Institute that nuclear energy needs to be a part of a diverse energy portfolio.
Once again, we see anti-nuclear extremists creating the same old straw man, and setting up the same old false choice: That the world needs to choose between nuclear energy and renewables. But any serious observer of the energy business knows that we're going to need nuclear energy, renewables and other sources of energy like clean coal if we're going to both protect the environment and spur economic growth at home and internationally.
Now let’s turn to the issue of expense, an area where this "radical think tank" uses a radical and unsupported methodology to massage the figures.
The costs presented in the study primarily cite data from the U.K.'s Performance and Innovation Unit. This group (aka the Strategy Unit) conducted an energy review back in 2002 to help the UK policymakers frame map out that nation's future energy infrastructure. As I scrolled to the bottom of the page of the energy review, I found a table on what the estimated costs of every fuel are in 2020. According to these figures, nuclear will be competitive with every other fuel source.
Which leads us to my biggest beef with the NEF study. The NEF uses the numbers from the PIU to put in their own table on page 39. But what they then do is create their own estimate of what nuclear really costs, and refuse to apply the same econometric model to any other fuel -- including renewables.
In other words, the study picks the worst case scenario for nuclear and the best case scenario for renewables. In serious economic research circles that's fundamentally dishonest, and not a sound basis for guiding international energy and climate change policy.
Here’s a lesson from Data 101 that every freshman economics student understands: Stick to one and only one source when talking about the same data! For the study to be fair, the same methodology used for nuclear should apply to all other energy sources. Doing anything else is just a bald attempt to massage the numbers and decieve people who don't take a close look at how the study has been conducted.
Now for the last part of the sentence with nuclear being “too limited.” This is the best.
Given current nuclear output one estimate from a body representing the renewables industry suggests that uranium reserves will be depleted in around four decades.
That body is the World Council for Renewable Energy -- and you know they would never be biased against nuclear energy. Now check out this quote:
Uranium is plentiful, easy and cheap to store, and likely to remain cheap. This means that nuclear power is essentially an indigenous form of energy.
Guess who stated this? The aforementioned PIU! It's in their energy review. Find it by scrolling down to the nuclear section. While reviewing the study, the NEF used so much data from the PIU analysis that I often got the two mixed up. But when it came to uranium supply, PIU references were nowhere to be found.
I guess a reference source like the PIU is only good when it is in favor of the technology one is promoting. If people really want to know what the “Energy choices in an age of global warming” are, they should look at PIU’s The Energy Review, and not bother with willful distortions of their findings and conclusions.
Back in the 1960s, it became vogue in education circles to promote "New Math" as an improved method to teach elementary school children. Ultimately, it was junked when it became clear that the new methods came at the cost of teaching important basic computational skills.
Anyone who reads the NEF study ought to keep the ill-fated experiment with "New Math" in mind, as any college student who attempted to replicate its methodolgy would soon find themselves booted from the Econ program and back into liberal arts.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
'New Math' and the New Economics Foundation
Recently, the New Economics Foundation, published a study examining energy choices in an age of global warming. But when you take a closer look at the study and its methodology, it's easy to surmise that the authors already knew what their conclusions would be before they ever started crunching the numbers.
Here’s NEF’s summary of nuclear in the study:
Now let's turn to the issue of whether nuclear capacity can be built quickly enough to effect climate change:
Yet renewables, which account for only a quarter of the emission free electricity in the US are expected to scale up electrical production so quickly, that they'll be able to save the world in just a decade. It's also important to note that the vast majority of renewable capacity is actually hydropower, a type of renewable energy that may very well have reached its practical limit.
The simple fact is that electricity demand will increase so quickly -- as much as 50 percent in the U.S. over the next 20 years -- that we're going to need to rely on each and every source of energy in order to keep up. That's why it has always been the position of the Nuclear Energy Institute that nuclear energy needs to be a part of a diverse energy portfolio.
Once again, we see anti-nuclear extremists creating the same old straw man, and setting up the same old false choice: That the world needs to choose between nuclear energy and renewables. But any serious observer of the energy business knows that we're going to need nuclear energy, renewables and other sources of energy like clean coal if we're going to both protect the environment and spur economic growth at home and internationally.
Now let’s turn to the issue of expense, an area where this "radical think tank" uses a radical and unsupported methodology to massage the figures.
The costs presented in the study primarily cite data from the U.K.'s Performance and Innovation Unit. This group (aka the Strategy Unit) conducted an energy review back in 2002 to help the UK policymakers frame map out that nation's future energy infrastructure. As I scrolled to the bottom of the page of the energy review, I found a table on what the estimated costs of every fuel are in 2020. According to these figures, nuclear will be competitive with every other fuel source.
Which leads us to my biggest beef with the NEF study. The NEF uses the numbers from the PIU to put in their own table on page 39. But what they then do is create their own estimate of what nuclear really costs, and refuse to apply the same econometric model to any other fuel -- including renewables.
In other words, the study picks the worst case scenario for nuclear and the best case scenario for renewables. In serious economic research circles that's fundamentally dishonest, and not a sound basis for guiding international energy and climate change policy.
Here’s a lesson from Data 101 that every freshman economics student understands: Stick to one and only one source when talking about the same data! For the study to be fair, the same methodology used for nuclear should apply to all other energy sources. Doing anything else is just a bald attempt to massage the numbers and decieve people who don't take a close look at how the study has been conducted.
Now for the last part of the sentence with nuclear being “too limited.” This is the best.
Here’s NEF’s summary of nuclear in the study:
Nuclear power is being promoted as the answer to climate change and energy insecurity. But, as a response to global warming, it is too slow, too expensive and too limited. And in an age of terrorist threats, it is more of a security risk than a solution. Instead, the characteristics of a flexible, safe, secure and climate friendly energy supply system apply to renewable energy. In comparison, it leaves no toxic legacy and is abundant and cheap to harvest both in the UK and globally.Let's start with the assertion that nuclear is “too slow, too expensive and too limited” to help battle climate change. The study states on page 35:
The PIU [Performance and Innovation Unit] suggests a planning/construction period in the order of a decade for each nuclear plant – a figure that may prove optimistic in the light of the controversy of planning applications and past experience of delays in construction.It's clear that estimate is based on the experience in the U.S. post-Three Mile Island when anti-nuclear activists used the legal system as a weapon against new plant construction. Today, with a streamlined review process in place at the NRC (the breakout of the Early Site Permit: ESP and the Combined Construction and Operating License: COL), the US nuclear industry estimates that five years is a more accurate estimate -- especially when looking at current construction timetables in Asia.
Now let's turn to the issue of whether nuclear capacity can be built quickly enough to effect climate change:
The earliest that new nuclear capacity could be introduced means it can’t tackle climate change. Twenty years was considered to be the earliest that a new generation of nuclear reactors of this type could be introduced, whereas the scientific community say that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is urgent with the next decade.So renewables (what NEF offers as the solution) need to come to the rescue within the next decade to save us from disaster. However, we know that nuclear energy avoids more emissions than all sources of renewable energy in the U.S. combined.
Yet renewables, which account for only a quarter of the emission free electricity in the US are expected to scale up electrical production so quickly, that they'll be able to save the world in just a decade. It's also important to note that the vast majority of renewable capacity is actually hydropower, a type of renewable energy that may very well have reached its practical limit.
The simple fact is that electricity demand will increase so quickly -- as much as 50 percent in the U.S. over the next 20 years -- that we're going to need to rely on each and every source of energy in order to keep up. That's why it has always been the position of the Nuclear Energy Institute that nuclear energy needs to be a part of a diverse energy portfolio.
Once again, we see anti-nuclear extremists creating the same old straw man, and setting up the same old false choice: That the world needs to choose between nuclear energy and renewables. But any serious observer of the energy business knows that we're going to need nuclear energy, renewables and other sources of energy like clean coal if we're going to both protect the environment and spur economic growth at home and internationally.
Now let’s turn to the issue of expense, an area where this "radical think tank" uses a radical and unsupported methodology to massage the figures.
The costs presented in the study primarily cite data from the U.K.'s Performance and Innovation Unit. This group (aka the Strategy Unit) conducted an energy review back in 2002 to help the UK policymakers frame map out that nation's future energy infrastructure. As I scrolled to the bottom of the page of the energy review, I found a table on what the estimated costs of every fuel are in 2020. According to these figures, nuclear will be competitive with every other fuel source.
Which leads us to my biggest beef with the NEF study. The NEF uses the numbers from the PIU to put in their own table on page 39. But what they then do is create their own estimate of what nuclear really costs, and refuse to apply the same econometric model to any other fuel -- including renewables.
In other words, the study picks the worst case scenario for nuclear and the best case scenario for renewables. In serious economic research circles that's fundamentally dishonest, and not a sound basis for guiding international energy and climate change policy.
Here’s a lesson from Data 101 that every freshman economics student understands: Stick to one and only one source when talking about the same data! For the study to be fair, the same methodology used for nuclear should apply to all other energy sources. Doing anything else is just a bald attempt to massage the numbers and decieve people who don't take a close look at how the study has been conducted.
Now for the last part of the sentence with nuclear being “too limited.” This is the best.
Given current nuclear output one estimate from a body representing the renewables industry suggests that uranium reserves will be depleted in around four decades.
That body is the World Council for Renewable Energy -- and you know they would never be biased against nuclear energy. Now check out this quote:
Uranium is plentiful, easy and cheap to store, and likely to remain cheap. This means that nuclear power is essentially an indigenous form of energy.
Guess who stated this? The aforementioned PIU! It's in their energy review. Find it by scrolling down to the nuclear section. While reviewing the study, the NEF used so much data from the PIU analysis that I often got the two mixed up. But when it came to uranium supply, PIU references were nowhere to be found.
I guess a reference source like the PIU is only good when it is in favor of the technology one is promoting. If people really want to know what the “Energy choices in an age of global warming” are, they should look at PIU’s The Energy Review, and not bother with willful distortions of their findings and conclusions.
Back in the 1960s, it became vogue in education circles to promote "New Math" as an improved method to teach elementary school children. Ultimately, it was junked when it became clear that the new methods came at the cost of teaching important basic computational skills.
Anyone who reads the NEF study ought to keep the ill-fated experiment with "New Math" in mind, as any college student who attempted to replicate its methodolgy would soon find themselves booted from the Econ program and back into liberal arts.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Energy Bill Now on House Floor
We'll give you the final roll call vote when it's finished.
UPDATE: Final vote -- 275-156 in favor, with three reps not voting. Detailed breakdown in a moment . . .
FINAL UPDATE: Here's the breakdown. Senate vote is tomorrow.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
UPDATE: Final vote -- 275-156 in favor, with three reps not voting. Detailed breakdown in a moment . . .
FINAL UPDATE: Here's the breakdown. Senate vote is tomorrow.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Energy Bill Now on House Floor
We'll give you the final roll call vote when it's finished.
UPDATE: Final vote -- 275-156 in favor, with three reps not voting. Detailed breakdown in a moment . . .
FINAL UPDATE: Here's the breakdown. Senate vote is tomorrow.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
UPDATE: Final vote -- 275-156 in favor, with three reps not voting. Detailed breakdown in a moment . . .
FINAL UPDATE: Here's the breakdown. Senate vote is tomorrow.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
The NEI Morning Clip File
Here are some of the news clips we're reading at NEI this morning. Things are looking good on the energy bill front, as the House is poised to approve it when once it comes time for a final vote:
Come back this afternoon for more news from the NEI Clip File.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
The House was set Thursday to approve an energy bill packed with $14.5 billion in tax breaks and incentives and hailed by Republicans as a major change in U.S. energy policy.Elsewhere, the chief executive of British Energy says he is "not to be distracted" by possible government plans for new nuclear plants. Rather, he is focusing his energy on extending the life of current plants:
The bill will pass "overwhelmingly" in the House, predicted Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican and author of much of the 1,700-page legislation.
The Senate is expected to approve it Friday, just before Congress recesses for its summer vacation. President Bush has indicated he will sign the energy bill, which he called one of his top priorities in 2005.
"The enactment of this bill is needed to put us on a path to greater energy and economic security," said Treasury Secretary John Snow. "It will help American workers, families and businesses by increasing energy efficiency and conservation and reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy."
Instead, he has upped investment in BE's eight existing nuclear power stations - from £162 million last year to £230-250m - and launched investigations into pushing back the dates they are due to expire. Dungeness, in Kent, is first on the list, as it is due to be shut down in 2008.It's important to note that uprates of existing American nuclear power plants has helped this country add the equivalent of 18 nuclear power plants to our electrical grid over the last 10 years. In addition, plans by reactor owners to apply for relicensing of the vast majority of the nation's nuclear power plants has relieved considerable pressure from America's power grid as well.
Coley said: "Dungeness could be extended by about five to ten years, and we will find out how long in the autumn. This is a priority for us - alongside financial stability and improving reliability." However, if new nuclear stations are built, it is likely that a consortium involving BE would be asked to run them.
Come back this afternoon for more news from the NEI Clip File.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
The NEI Morning Clip File
Here are some of the news clips we're reading at NEI this morning. Things are looking good on the energy bill front, as the House is poised to approve it when once it comes time for a final vote:
Come back this afternoon for more news from the NEI Clip File.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
The House was set Thursday to approve an energy bill packed with $14.5 billion in tax breaks and incentives and hailed by Republicans as a major change in U.S. energy policy.Elsewhere, the chief executive of British Energy says he is "not to be distracted" by possible government plans for new nuclear plants. Rather, he is focusing his energy on extending the life of current plants:
The bill will pass "overwhelmingly" in the House, predicted Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican and author of much of the 1,700-page legislation.
The Senate is expected to approve it Friday, just before Congress recesses for its summer vacation. President Bush has indicated he will sign the energy bill, which he called one of his top priorities in 2005.
"The enactment of this bill is needed to put us on a path to greater energy and economic security," said Treasury Secretary John Snow. "It will help American workers, families and businesses by increasing energy efficiency and conservation and reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy."
Instead, he has upped investment in BE's eight existing nuclear power stations - from £162 million last year to £230-250m - and launched investigations into pushing back the dates they are due to expire. Dungeness, in Kent, is first on the list, as it is due to be shut down in 2008.It's important to note that uprates of existing American nuclear power plants has helped this country add the equivalent of 18 nuclear power plants to our electrical grid over the last 10 years. In addition, plans by reactor owners to apply for relicensing of the vast majority of the nation's nuclear power plants has relieved considerable pressure from America's power grid as well.
Coley said: "Dungeness could be extended by about five to ten years, and we will find out how long in the autumn. This is a priority for us - alongside financial stability and improving reliability." However, if new nuclear stations are built, it is likely that a consortium involving BE would be asked to run them.
Come back this afternoon for more news from the NEI Clip File.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Wednesday, 27 July 2005
The NEI Afternoon Clip File
Here are some of the news clips we're reading at NEI this afternoon.
The energy bill continues to make headlines. The Albuquerque Tribune writes that Sens. Domenici and Bingaman, both from New Mexico, are feeling positive:
In international news, Nigeria is realizing that nuclear simply must be part of its energy mix:
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
The energy bill continues to make headlines. The Albuquerque Tribune writes that Sens. Domenici and Bingaman, both from New Mexico, are feeling positive:
"It helps us move the country in the direction of our energy needs," [Bingaman] said.Farmers are also satisfied with the bill, reports The Daily Nonpareil:
..."I anticipate strong bipartisan support in the Senate," Domenici said in a statement. "I am particularly proud of the conservation and efficiency measures in this bill. We do everything we could think of to diversify our energy supply and develop new energies that don't rely on fossil fuels."
"It's very landmark legislation for rural America," Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) told reporters Tuesday. "Renewable fuel standards sets a 7.5 billion gallon mandate for ethanol and biodiesel. The tax package includes farmer-friendly provisions, including tax incentives for biodiesel, wind energy and ethanol biomass."USA Today agrees, adding that the nuclear energy industry is pleased with the legislation:
The nuclear industry, corn farmers and the coal industry did particularly well with the legislation.Louisiana is looking forward to receiving its share of the bill:
The bill would require refiners to double the use of ethanol, mostly from corn, as an additive to gasoline to 7.5 billion gallons a year by 2012.
A boon to farmers, it also would cost the taxpayer because ethanol gets a substantial tax break compared to gasoline, said Myron Ebel, an energy analyst for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
...The nuclear industry hailed the legislation. It reaped major benefits, including "risk insurance" totaling $2 billion if there are permitting or regulatory delays in construction of the first six new nuclear power reactors.
The bill also provides loan guarantees for future reactors and a green light for building a $1.25 billion next-generation nuclear plant that could produce hydrogen as well as electricity.
Louisiana and five other states that allow oil and natural gas drilling off their shores are set to get about $1 billion in royalty money from offshore leases. The money would be distributed between 2007 and 2010 with Louisiana getting about 54 percent of it.Reuters is also keep the public up-to-date with a list of key elements included in the energy bill.
Louisiana wants to use the money to fix its eroding and sinking coastline, which has lost about 1,900 square miles since the 1930s.
In international news, Nigeria is realizing that nuclear simply must be part of its energy mix:
The federal government is articulating an energy mix profile to move national energy supply capacity to over 30,000MW in the next 10 years.And in subterranean news, nuclear is helping geophysicists dig deeper. Subatomic particles called antineutrinos are providing insight into the chemical makeup of the earth. And where do we get antineutrinos? You guessed it: nuclear reactors.
...The current national generation capacity stands at between 3,000 to 4,000MW
[Minister of Science and Technology Turner] Isoun said that the mix under consideration included the nuclear energy power plant, coal, wind, bio mass, hydrogen fuel cell, wave and tidal options.
He said that the decision to explore other alternatives such as building and utilising nuclear power plants, were guided by the fact that the current energy mix was grossly inadequate for the nation's industrial growth.
Geophysicists have a new tool for studying the Earth's interior, reported in the July 28 issue of the journal Nature.Come back tomorrow morning for more news from the NEI Clip File.
That tool is a gift from unlikely collaborators-physicists who study neutrinos, subatomic particles that stars spew out, and their antiparticles, called antineutrinos, which emanate from nuclear reactors and from the Earth's interior when uranium and thorium isotopes undergo a cascade of heat-generating radioactive decay processes. A detector in Japan called KamLAND (for Kamioka liquid scintillator antineutrino detector) has sensed the geologically produced antineutrinos, known as ''geoneutrinos.'' This new window on the world that geoneutrinos open could yield important geophysical information.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
The NEI Afternoon Clip File
Here are some of the news clips we're reading at NEI this afternoon.
The energy bill continues to make headlines. The Albuquerque Tribune writes that Sens. Domenici and Bingaman, both from New Mexico, are feeling positive:
In international news, Nigeria is realizing that nuclear simply must be part of its energy mix:
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
The energy bill continues to make headlines. The Albuquerque Tribune writes that Sens. Domenici and Bingaman, both from New Mexico, are feeling positive:
"It helps us move the country in the direction of our energy needs," [Bingaman] said.Farmers are also satisfied with the bill, reports The Daily Nonpareil:
..."I anticipate strong bipartisan support in the Senate," Domenici said in a statement. "I am particularly proud of the conservation and efficiency measures in this bill. We do everything we could think of to diversify our energy supply and develop new energies that don't rely on fossil fuels."
"It's very landmark legislation for rural America," Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) told reporters Tuesday. "Renewable fuel standards sets a 7.5 billion gallon mandate for ethanol and biodiesel. The tax package includes farmer-friendly provisions, including tax incentives for biodiesel, wind energy and ethanol biomass."USA Today agrees, adding that the nuclear energy industry is pleased with the legislation:
The nuclear industry, corn farmers and the coal industry did particularly well with the legislation.Louisiana is looking forward to receiving its share of the bill:
The bill would require refiners to double the use of ethanol, mostly from corn, as an additive to gasoline to 7.5 billion gallons a year by 2012.
A boon to farmers, it also would cost the taxpayer because ethanol gets a substantial tax break compared to gasoline, said Myron Ebel, an energy analyst for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
...The nuclear industry hailed the legislation. It reaped major benefits, including "risk insurance" totaling $2 billion if there are permitting or regulatory delays in construction of the first six new nuclear power reactors.
The bill also provides loan guarantees for future reactors and a green light for building a $1.25 billion next-generation nuclear plant that could produce hydrogen as well as electricity.
Louisiana and five other states that allow oil and natural gas drilling off their shores are set to get about $1 billion in royalty money from offshore leases. The money would be distributed between 2007 and 2010 with Louisiana getting about 54 percent of it.Reuters is also keep the public up-to-date with a list of key elements included in the energy bill.
Louisiana wants to use the money to fix its eroding and sinking coastline, which has lost about 1,900 square miles since the 1930s.
In international news, Nigeria is realizing that nuclear simply must be part of its energy mix:
The federal government is articulating an energy mix profile to move national energy supply capacity to over 30,000MW in the next 10 years.And in subterranean news, nuclear is helping geophysicists dig deeper. Subatomic particles called antineutrinos are providing insight into the chemical makeup of the earth. And where do we get antineutrinos? You guessed it: nuclear reactors.
...The current national generation capacity stands at between 3,000 to 4,000MW
[Minister of Science and Technology Turner] Isoun said that the mix under consideration included the nuclear energy power plant, coal, wind, bio mass, hydrogen fuel cell, wave and tidal options.
He said that the decision to explore other alternatives such as building and utilising nuclear power plants, were guided by the fact that the current energy mix was grossly inadequate for the nation's industrial growth.
Geophysicists have a new tool for studying the Earth's interior, reported in the July 28 issue of the journal Nature.Come back tomorrow morning for more news from the NEI Clip File.
That tool is a gift from unlikely collaborators-physicists who study neutrinos, subatomic particles that stars spew out, and their antiparticles, called antineutrinos, which emanate from nuclear reactors and from the Earth's interior when uranium and thorium isotopes undergo a cascade of heat-generating radioactive decay processes. A detector in Japan called KamLAND (for Kamioka liquid scintillator antineutrino detector) has sensed the geologically produced antineutrinos, known as ''geoneutrinos.'' This new window on the world that geoneutrinos open could yield important geophysical information.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Energy Bill: nuclear energy provisions secure our energy future
The Next Generation Nuclear Plant project funded by the nuclear provisions in the energy bill is vital to nuclear energy’s growth. As communities accept the construction of plants in their communities, it becomes clear that nuclear power’s growth is inevitable. This growth along with investments in other alternatives can serve our current and future electricity demands
Communities like Oswego have readily accepted the prospects of new nuclear reactors in their backyards because the existing plants in that community have provided jobs, and an economic boom that was merely present before nuclear plants existed in those towns.
Also, considering projected power outages due to power grid failure and the forecast of depleted energy supply, the construction of more nuclear plants can defeat these operation failures. The bill invests $11.5 billion in tax incentives to develop the power grid, and sequester pollutants through the purchase of advanced pollution-control equipment. Also consider that the incentives invest in clean coal and renewables thereby diversifying the energy portfolio adding on to energy resources that will serve our needs.
Communities like Oswego have readily accepted the prospects of new nuclear reactors in their backyards because the existing plants in that community have provided jobs, and an economic boom that was merely present before nuclear plants existed in those towns.
Also, considering projected power outages due to power grid failure and the forecast of depleted energy supply, the construction of more nuclear plants can defeat these operation failures. The bill invests $11.5 billion in tax incentives to develop the power grid, and sequester pollutants through the purchase of advanced pollution-control equipment. Also consider that the incentives invest in clean coal and renewables thereby diversifying the energy portfolio adding on to energy resources that will serve our needs.
Energy Bill: nuclear energy provisions secure our energy future
The Next Generation Nuclear Plant project funded by the nuclear provisions in the energy bill is vital to nuclear energy’s growth. As communities accept the construction of plants in their communities, it becomes clear that nuclear power’s growth is inevitable. This growth along with investments in other alternatives can serve our current and future electricity demands
Communities like Oswego have readily accepted the prospects of new nuclear reactors in their backyards because the existing plants in that community have provided jobs, and an economic boom that was merely present before nuclear plants existed in those towns.
Also, considering projected power outages due to power grid failure and the forecast of depleted energy supply, the construction of more nuclear plants can defeat these operation failures. The bill invests $11.5 billion in tax incentives to develop the power grid, and sequester pollutants through the purchase of advanced pollution-control equipment. Also consider that the incentives invest in clean coal and renewables thereby diversifying the energy portfolio adding on to energy resources that will serve our needs.
Communities like Oswego have readily accepted the prospects of new nuclear reactors in their backyards because the existing plants in that community have provided jobs, and an economic boom that was merely present before nuclear plants existed in those towns.
Also, considering projected power outages due to power grid failure and the forecast of depleted energy supply, the construction of more nuclear plants can defeat these operation failures. The bill invests $11.5 billion in tax incentives to develop the power grid, and sequester pollutants through the purchase of advanced pollution-control equipment. Also consider that the incentives invest in clean coal and renewables thereby diversifying the energy portfolio adding on to energy resources that will serve our needs.
On My Soapbox for the Energy Bill
With increasing levels of incredulity I've been skimming the crush of press releases and articles quoting a few fringe environmentalists regarding the energy bill. The common thread in such statements is a condemnation of provisions that provide financial incentives to the energy industry to increase capacity and develop and utilize advanced technologies.
They decry the "waste" of taxpayer money.
So I ask:
Is it a waste to invest in a diverse energy portfolio that limits our dependence on any one generation source and thus supports national security?
Is it a waste to support developing technologies that will decrease polluting emissions and increase security and safety? And as an aside, I will repeat a fact that extremists often exclude; Every energy technology receives research and development support from the federal government.
Is it a waste to ensure that the generation capacity is available to support our growing population and economy?
The recent heat wave in large swaths of the country combined with increased demand exposed points of vulnerabilities in places like California where an electrical emergency was declared. All over the Midwest, the heat claimed the lives of some of our most vulnerable citizens. Like it or not, we are dependent on electricity for our health and safety.
Of course we should invest in energy conservation and the energy bill includes provisions to do so. But conservation can only stem the increase in demand, it won't lower it.
Of course we should invest in technologies like wind and solar power and the energy bill includes these provisions as well. But wind and solar currently provide less than 1% of our energy needs. Even the American Wind Energy Association has concluded that under the best circumstances wind energy could supply only about 6% of our nation’s electricity by the year 2020. And wind and solar will never be suitable for providing baseload capacity.
In short, I can think of few better or more important ways for Congress to spend my taxes. A stable and thriving energy portfolio is vital to our individual well-being and that of our nation.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
They decry the "waste" of taxpayer money.
So I ask:
Is it a waste to invest in a diverse energy portfolio that limits our dependence on any one generation source and thus supports national security?
Is it a waste to support developing technologies that will decrease polluting emissions and increase security and safety? And as an aside, I will repeat a fact that extremists often exclude; Every energy technology receives research and development support from the federal government.
Is it a waste to ensure that the generation capacity is available to support our growing population and economy?
The recent heat wave in large swaths of the country combined with increased demand exposed points of vulnerabilities in places like California where an electrical emergency was declared. All over the Midwest, the heat claimed the lives of some of our most vulnerable citizens. Like it or not, we are dependent on electricity for our health and safety.
Of course we should invest in energy conservation and the energy bill includes provisions to do so. But conservation can only stem the increase in demand, it won't lower it.
Of course we should invest in technologies like wind and solar power and the energy bill includes these provisions as well. But wind and solar currently provide less than 1% of our energy needs. Even the American Wind Energy Association has concluded that under the best circumstances wind energy could supply only about 6% of our nation’s electricity by the year 2020. And wind and solar will never be suitable for providing baseload capacity.
In short, I can think of few better or more important ways for Congress to spend my taxes. A stable and thriving energy portfolio is vital to our individual well-being and that of our nation.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
On My Soapbox for the Energy Bill
With increasing levels of incredulity I've been skimming the crush of press releases and articles quoting a few fringe environmentalists regarding the energy bill. The common thread in such statements is a condemnation of provisions that provide financial incentives to the energy industry to increase capacity and develop and utilize advanced technologies.
They decry the "waste" of taxpayer money.
So I ask:
Is it a waste to invest in a diverse energy portfolio that limits our dependence on any one generation source and thus supports national security?
Is it a waste to support developing technologies that will decrease polluting emissions and increase security and safety? And as an aside, I will repeat a fact that extremists often exclude; Every energy technology receives research and development support from the federal government.
Is it a waste to ensure that the generation capacity is available to support our growing population and economy?
The recent heat wave in large swaths of the country combined with increased demand exposed points of vulnerabilities in places like California where an electrical emergency was declared. All over the Midwest, the heat claimed the lives of some of our most vulnerable citizens. Like it or not, we are dependent on electricity for our health and safety.
Of course we should invest in energy conservation and the energy bill includes provisions to do so. But conservation can only stem the increase in demand, it won't lower it.
Of course we should invest in technologies like wind and solar power and the energy bill includes these provisions as well. But wind and solar currently provide less than 1% of our energy needs. Even the American Wind Energy Association has concluded that under the best circumstances wind energy could supply only about 6% of our nation’s electricity by the year 2020. And wind and solar will never be suitable for providing baseload capacity.
In short, I can think of few better or more important ways for Congress to spend my taxes. A stable and thriving energy portfolio is vital to our individual well-being and that of our nation.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
They decry the "waste" of taxpayer money.
So I ask:
Is it a waste to invest in a diverse energy portfolio that limits our dependence on any one generation source and thus supports national security?
Is it a waste to support developing technologies that will decrease polluting emissions and increase security and safety? And as an aside, I will repeat a fact that extremists often exclude; Every energy technology receives research and development support from the federal government.
Is it a waste to ensure that the generation capacity is available to support our growing population and economy?
The recent heat wave in large swaths of the country combined with increased demand exposed points of vulnerabilities in places like California where an electrical emergency was declared. All over the Midwest, the heat claimed the lives of some of our most vulnerable citizens. Like it or not, we are dependent on electricity for our health and safety.
Of course we should invest in energy conservation and the energy bill includes provisions to do so. But conservation can only stem the increase in demand, it won't lower it.
Of course we should invest in technologies like wind and solar power and the energy bill includes these provisions as well. But wind and solar currently provide less than 1% of our energy needs. Even the American Wind Energy Association has concluded that under the best circumstances wind energy could supply only about 6% of our nation’s electricity by the year 2020. And wind and solar will never be suitable for providing baseload capacity.
In short, I can think of few better or more important ways for Congress to spend my taxes. A stable and thriving energy portfolio is vital to our individual well-being and that of our nation.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Anti-Nuke Alert: Nuclear Energy Poll
Thanks to one of our readers for passing along the fact that National Geographic is running a poll asking the question, "Would You Live Near a Nuclear Power Plant?"
We're way down, but I smell some ballot stuffing. To get to the poll and vote, click here and go to the link marked "POLL" on the left hand margin. And while I am urging you to vote, I'm also urging you to keep it clean -- which means no automated ballot stuffing, ok?
Now get over there and vote.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
We're way down, but I smell some ballot stuffing. To get to the poll and vote, click here and go to the link marked "POLL" on the left hand margin. And while I am urging you to vote, I'm also urging you to keep it clean -- which means no automated ballot stuffing, ok?
Now get over there and vote.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Anti-Nuke Alert: Nuclear Energy Poll
Thanks to one of our readers for passing along the fact that National Geographic is running a poll asking the question, "Would You Live Near a Nuclear Power Plant?"
We're way down, but I smell some ballot stuffing. To get to the poll and vote, click here and go to the link marked "POLL" on the left hand margin. And while I am urging you to vote, I'm also urging you to keep it clean -- which means no automated ballot stuffing, ok?
Now get over there and vote.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
We're way down, but I smell some ballot stuffing. To get to the poll and vote, click here and go to the link marked "POLL" on the left hand margin. And while I am urging you to vote, I'm also urging you to keep it clean -- which means no automated ballot stuffing, ok?
Now get over there and vote.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Focus On the Energy Bill: Peaking power plants or baseload power plants?
The Christian Science Monitor has published an article entitled: Cost of electricity rising like summer heat. In the article, they summarize the difference to a utility (and the consumers) whether electricity demand is met with baseload plants or peaking plants, which are more expensive, often higher in emissions, and are designed and built to run only for short periods of the year when demand is highest.
Support for the energy bill is critical at this juncture, as a good policy for all Americans, particularly the portions of the policy that advance construction of new nuclear power stations.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
But this summer has been so hot that to meet the soaring demand, many utilities have had to turn to more expensive power plants, known as "peak generating plants." Instead of relying on coal or nuclear fuel, many of these power producers use more expensive oil or natural gas to power their turbines.The article also includes an illuminating quote the demonstrates conservation at its absolute worst.
"The reason we are calling on the president is our concern about the impact of high temperatures on people's health, and we know that many low-income and elderly people don't turn on their air conditioning because they are afraid of the bills," says Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association in Washington.How do we lower the electricity bills for those who can least afford (yet most need) the benefits that abundant, inexpensive power can provide? More of the cleanest baseload power stations: nuclear power is best positioned for expansion, in ways that hydropower cannot.
Support for the energy bill is critical at this juncture, as a good policy for all Americans, particularly the portions of the policy that advance construction of new nuclear power stations.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Focus On the Energy Bill: Peaking power plants or baseload power plants?
The Christian Science Monitor has published an article entitled: Cost of electricity rising like summer heat. In the article, they summarize the difference to a utility (and the consumers) whether electricity demand is met with baseload plants or peaking plants, which are more expensive, often higher in emissions, and are designed and built to run only for short periods of the year when demand is highest.
Support for the energy bill is critical at this juncture, as a good policy for all Americans, particularly the portions of the policy that advance construction of new nuclear power stations.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
But this summer has been so hot that to meet the soaring demand, many utilities have had to turn to more expensive power plants, known as "peak generating plants." Instead of relying on coal or nuclear fuel, many of these power producers use more expensive oil or natural gas to power their turbines.The article also includes an illuminating quote the demonstrates conservation at its absolute worst.
"The reason we are calling on the president is our concern about the impact of high temperatures on people's health, and we know that many low-income and elderly people don't turn on their air conditioning because they are afraid of the bills," says Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association in Washington.How do we lower the electricity bills for those who can least afford (yet most need) the benefits that abundant, inexpensive power can provide? More of the cleanest baseload power stations: nuclear power is best positioned for expansion, in ways that hydropower cannot.
Support for the energy bill is critical at this juncture, as a good policy for all Americans, particularly the portions of the policy that advance construction of new nuclear power stations.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Focus On the Energy Bill: What Choices Do We Have on Clean Air?
Even among the most educated, there seems to be some debate over whether human activity, specifically the emission of greenhouse gases (or GHGs) is having an impact on global warming. Never absent from the discussion are the "“hockey stick"” graph, movement of algae in the oceans, and "natural" temperature variations. On one end of the spectrum are those who tell us it'’s already too late. On the other end are those who tell us that our global impact is nil. Then there are the climate "agnostics" who aren't willing to say one way or the other.
If you are anything like I am, you probably fall into the category of "“cautiously aware."”
On one hand, the optimistic in me says that no matter how hard we try, we cannot have an impact on our global environment.
On the other hand, the realist in me says that the emission of several billion metric tons of carbon into the air each year, which has been neatly sequestered beneath the ground for a staggering amount of time, cannot go completely unnoticed by mother earth. In these dog days of summer, it doesn'’t take a Ph.D. in environmental science to notice the clouds of haze hovering above our cities. Additionally, even if there is no GHG effect, then how can we ignore the emission of millions of tons of NOx, SOx, mercury, and other pollutants from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, gas, and oil?
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem, but the proper use of renewable energy sources, plus conservation, plus non-carbon-emitting nuclear energy can provide a great deal of help in reducing it. But, until Congress can pass a national energy policy that supports nuclear energy, it appears that we will soon find out who is right about GHGs.
And, the pessimist in me says that the winner will not get any pleasure out of saying, "I told you so."”
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, EconomicsFocus On the Energy Bill: What Choices Do We Have on Clean Air?
Even among the most educated, there seems to be some debate over whether human activity, specifically the emission of greenhouse gases (or GHGs) is having an impact on global warming. Never absent from the discussion are the "“hockey stick"” graph, movement of algae in the oceans, and "natural" temperature variations. On one end of the spectrum are those who tell us it'’s already too late. On the other end are those who tell us that our global impact is nil. Then there are the climate "agnostics" who aren't willing to say one way or the other.
If you are anything like I am, you probably fall into the category of "“cautiously aware."”
On one hand, the optimistic in me says that no matter how hard we try, we cannot have an impact on our global environment.
On the other hand, the realist in me says that the emission of several billion metric tons of carbon into the air each year, which has been neatly sequestered beneath the ground for a staggering amount of time, cannot go completely unnoticed by mother earth. In these dog days of summer, it doesn'’t take a Ph.D. in environmental science to notice the clouds of haze hovering above our cities. Additionally, even if there is no GHG effect, then how can we ignore the emission of millions of tons of NOx, SOx, mercury, and other pollutants from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, gas, and oil?
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem, but the proper use of renewable energy sources, plus conservation, plus non-carbon-emitting nuclear energy can provide a great deal of help in reducing it. But, until Congress can pass a national energy policy that supports nuclear energy, it appears that we will soon find out who is right about GHGs.
And, the pessimist in me says that the winner will not get any pleasure out of saying, "I told you so."”
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, EconomicsFocus On the Energy Bill: Contact Your Legislators
Not willing to place a phone call to your Senator or House Representative in support of the energy bill? No problem. Click here to access enAct, a Web-based tool that helps you send emails to your elected officials on Capitol Hill.
Don't waste time, do it right now.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Don't waste time, do it right now.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Focus On the Energy Bill: Contact Your Legislators
Not willing to place a phone call to your Senator or House Representative in support of the energy bill? No problem. Click here to access enAct, a Web-based tool that helps you send emails to your elected officials on Capitol Hill.
Don't waste time, do it right now.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Don't waste time, do it right now.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Focus On the Energy Bill: The View From Montana
From today's Great Falls Tribune:
A House-Senate panel Tuesday approved a sweeping new federal energy bill, which U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said includes key tax incentives for energy development in Montana that will also lessen American dependence on foreign oil.Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
"This energy tax package will help provide reliable, affordable energy for jobs, homes and Montana business," Baucus said. "I'm committed to working together to get this plan to the president."
Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., who serves on the committee that wrote the legislation, called the bill "bipartisan" and "balanced."
"It will help us use Montana's vast natural resources, while at the same time encourages greater conservation and efficiency," Burns said. "This bill will succeed because it recognizes that our future depends on a ready supply of affordable energy coming from coal, wind, natural gas, hydrogen fuel cells, and nuclear, to name a few."
Focus On the Energy Bill: The View From Montana
From today's Great Falls Tribune:
A House-Senate panel Tuesday approved a sweeping new federal energy bill, which U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said includes key tax incentives for energy development in Montana that will also lessen American dependence on foreign oil.Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
"This energy tax package will help provide reliable, affordable energy for jobs, homes and Montana business," Baucus said. "I'm committed to working together to get this plan to the president."
Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., who serves on the committee that wrote the legislation, called the bill "bipartisan" and "balanced."
"It will help us use Montana's vast natural resources, while at the same time encourages greater conservation and efficiency," Burns said. "This bill will succeed because it recognizes that our future depends on a ready supply of affordable energy coming from coal, wind, natural gas, hydrogen fuel cells, and nuclear, to name a few."
Focus On The Energy Bill: The Value of New Nuclear
Our friend Rod Adams was up late last night doing some celebrating:
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
With a unanimous vote yesterday, the Board of County Commissioners for Calvert County, Maryland decided to submit a resolution and letter of support endorsing the NuStart Energy Development Corporation's consideration of the Calvert Cliffs site for one of their proposed new reactors. Board of County Commissioners Submits Resolution in Support of NuStart Energy's Calvert Cliffs Expansion Proposal.And with the help of the Energy Bill, and its provisions to spur the construction of new nuclear power plants, lots more folks are going to be able to consider that decision in the years to come.
I just finished my own quiet - it is, after all, only a bit after 4:00 am and the rest of my family is still sleeping - cheer and fist pumping when I read that press release.
(snip)
Unlike most of the rest of the power plants that dot the shores of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, the plant does not have a smoke stack that pours out thousands of tons of pollutants every day. From a purely selfish point of view, I also know that expanding the plant there will help to keep my electrical power rates under control, especially compared to plants that use something like imported LNG.
The county commissioners know the plant, they know the workers, and they know that the plant is a major asset to their community. Once again, the people near the plants are telling the world that they want more of them in their own backyard.
One thing that uncommitted observers of the coming debates on new nuclear power plants - and we know that there are going to be some debates - need to think about is the fact that the more closely people live and work around nuclear power, the more they favor its use. Those same people should then consider whether or not that trend applies to competitive energy sources.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Focus On The Energy Bill: The Value of New Nuclear
Our friend Rod Adams was up late last night doing some celebrating:
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
With a unanimous vote yesterday, the Board of County Commissioners for Calvert County, Maryland decided to submit a resolution and letter of support endorsing the NuStart Energy Development Corporation's consideration of the Calvert Cliffs site for one of their proposed new reactors. Board of County Commissioners Submits Resolution in Support of NuStart Energy's Calvert Cliffs Expansion Proposal.And with the help of the Energy Bill, and its provisions to spur the construction of new nuclear power plants, lots more folks are going to be able to consider that decision in the years to come.
I just finished my own quiet - it is, after all, only a bit after 4:00 am and the rest of my family is still sleeping - cheer and fist pumping when I read that press release.
(snip)
Unlike most of the rest of the power plants that dot the shores of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, the plant does not have a smoke stack that pours out thousands of tons of pollutants every day. From a purely selfish point of view, I also know that expanding the plant there will help to keep my electrical power rates under control, especially compared to plants that use something like imported LNG.
The county commissioners know the plant, they know the workers, and they know that the plant is a major asset to their community. Once again, the people near the plants are telling the world that they want more of them in their own backyard.
One thing that uncommitted observers of the coming debates on new nuclear power plants - and we know that there are going to be some debates - need to think about is the fact that the more closely people live and work around nuclear power, the more they favor its use. Those same people should then consider whether or not that trend applies to competitive energy sources.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Focus on the Energy Bill: Bring Some Perspective to Energy Policy
Here's the opener to an Associated Press story, as reported in the Louisiana Daily Comet:
If states are even eager enough to consider competing for new nuclear development, do you think they're eager for rising electricity costs for their constituents? Of course not! Read your power bills closely - the costs are going up faster without new nuclear construction than would be if we had the choice for more inexpensive baseload power, that is also environmentally benign.
What alternatives to these so-called environmentalists offer that is better for the environment that nuclear? The only argument they make that may be better on a broad perspective, considering cost, releases and public health, is conservation. But if using less energy were the grassroots mandate they would like to think it is, then wouldn't we be already doing it? And if we're already doing it, why are utilities studying investing in new power stations 3 to 10 years down the road? Nobody plans to spend money on an idle baseload plant. Nuclear stations won't be idle. Why? They're the cheapest and the cleanest - and we need more of them.
Phone the staff of your senators and representatives, who are voting on the energy bill this week! You can contact your senators from here and your representative from here.
The Capitol Switchboard numbers are:
Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121
Toll-Free Numbers: 1-888-355-3588 or 1-877-762-8762
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Six states are competing to land the country's first new nuclear energy plants in three decades. Environmental groups said they'll try to stop the facilities from opening, no matter which states are selected.Just that much of the article caught my eye, and I was intrigued to read on. I reflected on New England states' efforts to curb power plant emissions, sometimes above and beyond federal enforcement, because they and their leadership are concerned over the health of their citizens and their children. [See here and here, for examples.]
If states are even eager enough to consider competing for new nuclear development, do you think they're eager for rising electricity costs for their constituents? Of course not! Read your power bills closely - the costs are going up faster without new nuclear construction than would be if we had the choice for more inexpensive baseload power, that is also environmentally benign.
What alternatives to these so-called environmentalists offer that is better for the environment that nuclear? The only argument they make that may be better on a broad perspective, considering cost, releases and public health, is conservation. But if using less energy were the grassroots mandate they would like to think it is, then wouldn't we be already doing it? And if we're already doing it, why are utilities studying investing in new power stations 3 to 10 years down the road? Nobody plans to spend money on an idle baseload plant. Nuclear stations won't be idle. Why? They're the cheapest and the cleanest - and we need more of them.
Phone the staff of your senators and representatives, who are voting on the energy bill this week! You can contact your senators from here and your representative from here.
The Capitol Switchboard numbers are:
Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121
Toll-Free Numbers: 1-888-355-3588 or 1-877-762-8762
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Focus on the Energy Bill: Bring Some Perspective to Energy Policy
Here's the opener to an Associated Press story, as reported in the Louisiana Daily Comet:
If states are even eager enough to consider competing for new nuclear development, do you think they're eager for rising electricity costs for their constituents? Of course not! Read your power bills closely - the costs are going up faster without new nuclear construction than would be if we had the choice for more inexpensive baseload power, that is also environmentally benign.
What alternatives to these so-called environmentalists offer that is better for the environment that nuclear? The only argument they make that may be better on a broad perspective, considering cost, releases and public health, is conservation. But if using less energy were the grassroots mandate they would like to think it is, then wouldn't we be already doing it? And if we're already doing it, why are utilities studying investing in new power stations 3 to 10 years down the road? Nobody plans to spend money on an idle baseload plant. Nuclear stations won't be idle. Why? They're the cheapest and the cleanest - and we need more of them.
Phone the staff of your senators and representatives, who are voting on the energy bill this week! You can contact your senators from here and your representative from here.
The Capitol Switchboard numbers are:
Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121
Toll-Free Numbers: 1-888-355-3588 or 1-877-762-8762
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Six states are competing to land the country's first new nuclear energy plants in three decades. Environmental groups said they'll try to stop the facilities from opening, no matter which states are selected.Just that much of the article caught my eye, and I was intrigued to read on. I reflected on New England states' efforts to curb power plant emissions, sometimes above and beyond federal enforcement, because they and their leadership are concerned over the health of their citizens and their children. [See here and here, for examples.]
If states are even eager enough to consider competing for new nuclear development, do you think they're eager for rising electricity costs for their constituents? Of course not! Read your power bills closely - the costs are going up faster without new nuclear construction than would be if we had the choice for more inexpensive baseload power, that is also environmentally benign.
What alternatives to these so-called environmentalists offer that is better for the environment that nuclear? The only argument they make that may be better on a broad perspective, considering cost, releases and public health, is conservation. But if using less energy were the grassroots mandate they would like to think it is, then wouldn't we be already doing it? And if we're already doing it, why are utilities studying investing in new power stations 3 to 10 years down the road? Nobody plans to spend money on an idle baseload plant. Nuclear stations won't be idle. Why? They're the cheapest and the cleanest - and we need more of them.
Phone the staff of your senators and representatives, who are voting on the energy bill this week! You can contact your senators from here and your representative from here.
The Capitol Switchboard numbers are:
Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121
Toll-Free Numbers: 1-888-355-3588 or 1-877-762-8762
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics