2009 Dec 4
A Times editorial perpetuates the myths that nuclear power plants are uniquely dangerous and too cost-prohibitive to build.
The Times excels when it comments on social and political issues on its opinion pages. But when tackling technical issues, it often falls dramatically short. I am both frustrated and annoyed at the lack of knowledge of nuclear power that pervades this country, and the perpetuation of this ignorance by well-meaning but equally uninformed authority figures. The Times' Nov. 28 editorial, “No new nukes — plants, that is,” perpetuates this ignorance.
People fear what they don't understand. The issues with nuclear power are not technical but social and political. The majority of the nuclear technical issues were resolved in the 1960s, and the technology today is well understood by engineers working with these systems. Yet efforts to educate the public regarding nuclear power are lacking, leading to the dangerous perpetuation of misinformation.
Nuclear power is the cleanest, safest and -- if other power-generating sources were compared fairly -- the cheapest method of generating electricity.
As The Times writes, nuclear power plants do indeed "take too long to build and cost too much," but only because of restrictions imposed on them that are motivated by political and social pressure as much as they are by safety. Coal-fired power plants, for example, not only emit massive amounts of carbon dioxide, they can be up to 100 times more radioactive than nuclear plants producing the same amount of energy. Raw coal has numerous impurities, including uranium, thorium and potassium 40. When coal is burned, these radioactive impurities concentrate at least by an order of magnitude.
All of the nation's nuclear power is dedicated to the production of electricity, which is generated primarily in three stages -- base load, intermediate and peak shaving. Base-load electricity production, for which nuclear power is ideally suited, makes up about 35% to 40% of the power generated in the U.S. each year. Given that the electricity produced annually in the U.S. is on the order of 40 quadrillion BTUs (or "quads"), the base-load contribution is between 14 and 16 quads, which alone is more than seven times the total electricity produced annually in France.
Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-moynihan7-2009dec07,0,3701265.story
Want to help with Global-Warming? Please visit http://www.whiteearth.org
Please become a fan of the Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/WhiteEarthorg/119367692642 and http://www.facebook.com/pages/WhiteEarth/165767310764
Become a friend on Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/christopherbeau
Follow me on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/christopherbeau
Become a follower of this blog
When you buy art on http://www.artsymphony.com 100% of your investment goes to sponsor WhiteEarth
Showing posts with label Nuclear Power Plants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuclear Power Plants. Show all posts
Jan 3, 2010
Dec 29, 2009
Why the U.S. Needs Nuclear Power Other clean energy sources can't meet the needs of a growing economy.
2009 Nov 8
By ARIS CANDRIS
As America climbs out of one of its worst recessions in decades, we must keep in mind that long-term economic growth requires an abundant, affordable supply of electricity.
By 2030, electricity demand in the U.S. is expected to grow by 21% from its current level, according to the U.S. Energy Administration. To meet our needs we have several options.
One is to increase our dependence on fossil energy sources. Unfortunately, this will only add to the environmental burden caused by burning carbon-based fuels. Another option, the Obama administration's goal, is to increase the supply of energy sources that reduce the country's carbon footprint. These sources include solar, wind, hydro, biofuels and geothermal energy, as well as new domestic sources of natural gas, which burns cleaner than oil or coal.
Toward that end, the proposed Senate climate-change bill, sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) and John Kerry (D., Mass.), provides incentives to electric companies to use energy sources that reduce carbon emissions. The bill also expands federal loan guarantees to support the financing of new nuclear plant projects.
These loan guarantees are crucial for providing the financial security that's needed to build advanced nuclear energy plants. These new plants will promote energy independence, improve our country's economic competitiveness, and help provide a cleaner environment for future generations.
To be sure, the U.S needs to embrace all forms of renewable and sustainable energy technologies whenever possible. But the simple, unavoidable truth is that all renewable energy sources produce only a small percentage of our total electricity output. Wind and solar combined, for example, account for less than 5% of the total U.S. electricity supply. It is doubtful that they can be scaled up to a degree that would make a significant impact on rising electricity demand over the short or intermediate term.
Greater energy efficiency and conservation also make good business and environmental sense. But a 21% growth in demand for electric power, compounded by the need to replace aging power plants, is too great to satisfy with energy efficiency and conservation alone.
Nuclear energy, therefore, must play a larger role in our effort to become and remain energy independent, and to reduce carbon emissions. The growth of nuclear power will also have peripheral benefits, as it constitutes an economic stimulus package in and of itself.
Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704224004574489702243465472.html
Please become a fan of the Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/WhiteEarthorg/119367692642 and http://www.facebook.com/pages/WhiteEarth/165767310764
Become a friend on Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/christopherbeau
Follow me on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/christopherbeau
Become a follower of this blog
When you buy art on http://www.artsymphony.com 100% of your investment goes to sponsor WhiteEarth
Dec 28, 2009
New nuclear power stations to be announced by Ed Miliband
2009 Nov 9
Scotland: A new generation of nuclear power stations will be up and running within a decade, Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary will announce.
A “majority” of the 11 shortlisted sites already announced are expected to be given the go-ahead by Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, including those beside existing plants at Hinkley Point in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk. Two locations near to Sellafield in Cumbria are also expected to receive the green light. Mr Miliband will also announce a new Infrastructure Planning Commission which will mean planning applications for nuclear plants will be fast-tracked, avoiding the kind of delays which dogged the six-year battle over the building of the Sizewell B power plant.
The new stations could be up and running as soon as 2017, with Mr Miliband making clear that the Government believes that “saying no” to nuclear is not an option if Britain is to meet its climate change commitments.
EDF, E.ON and RWE are among the firms who have expressed an interest in running the new power stations. Earlier this year, a shortlist of proposed sites was put out to a six-month consultation.
Hinkley Point, which is proposed by the French firm EDF, would become the country’s first pressurised water reactor. The company also aims to establish two reactors at the Somerset site, along with two at Sizewell.
The proposed sites near the Sellafield nuclear complex in Cumbria, which are currently farmland and have been bought by the German-owned RWE npower, are also thought almost certain to receive the go-ahead. One, in mid-Copeland already has access to the national grid; the other is in mid-Copeland.
Want to help with Global-Warming? Please visit http://www.whiteearth.orgPlease become a fan of the Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/WhiteEarthorg/119367692642 and http://www.facebook.com/pages/WhiteEarth/165767310764
Become a friend on Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/christopherbeau
Follow me on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/christopherbeau
Become a follower of this blog
When you buy art on http://www.artsymphony.com 100% of your investment goes to sponsor WhiteEarth
Dec 27, 2009
New nuclear power station could create thousands of jobs
2009 Nov 9
THOUSANDS of jobs have been promised by the two energy companies hoping to build a second-generation nuclear power station at Shepperdine.
German energy giant E.ON, along with project partners RWE npower, have said that if plans go ahead to build another power station it could bring up to 6,000 jobs to South Gloucestershire.
The companies, who are now working under the title Horizon Nuclear Power for the joint nuclear project, have said 5,000 jobs could be created during a power station's construction and a further 800 permanent posts for the running of the plant.
Horizon Nuclear Power is opening a new headquarters in Gloucester next week and plans to establish an office close to its potential development site near Oldbury in the future.
The group has said it will invest more than £15 billion in next generation nuclear power and it hopes to get its first reactor online by 2025.
Want to help with Global-Warming? Please visit http://www.whiteearth.orgPlease become a fan of the Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/WhiteEarthorg/119367692642 and http://www.facebook.com/pages/WhiteEarth/165767310764
Become a friend on Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/christopherbeau
Follow me on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/christopherbeau
Become a follower of this blog
When you buy art on http://www.artsymphony.com 100% of your investment goes to sponsor WhiteEarth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
