Poland Considers New Nuclear Build

Caught between emissions control and economic growth, Poland is taking a second look at nuclear energy:

But the European Commission has not yet accepted the Polish [emissions reduction] plan, demanding that the country slash its emissions quota by 47 million tons annually in the years from 2005 to 2007. If the EC’s decision stands – Poland is considering taking the issue to the European Court of Justice – Polish energy, steel, glass and cement companies may be forced to reduce production. Such a slowdown could impede the growth that the country had hoped would come with membership in the EU.

Whatever the final shape of the Polish plan, in order to achieve reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions the largely coal-based Polish energy sector will have to turn to other energy sources unless it is prepared to reduce production, pay fees for exceeding emissions quotas or buy surplus allowances on the emissions market.

Poland’s energy sector has little hope of developing renewable sources of energy like wind, water or solar power. According to Podgajniak, Poland will have no choice but to consider nuclear power if it wants to meet the EU’s ambitious long-term goals for reducing emissions. By 2020, emissions should be down by 20 percent to 30 percent. In 2050 the goal for cuts could be as high as 60 percent. It is hard to imagine an energy sector based on coal that could handle such limitations.

It's becoming a familiar refrain.

Technorati tags: Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics

Comments

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog