Here are some of the news clips we're reading at NEI this morning. South Carolina has aspirations to become a leader in the hydrogen fuel market, but two reports say that the state will need to boost its nuclear energy program to accomplish this:
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
The state also should set as its No. 1 priority securing the billion-dollar-plus federal investment to ensure the next nuclear reactor is located at SRS. That will require the united support of the stateÂ’s congressional delegation, the report states. In the next two decades, the commercial-scale reactor probably will be the single largest hydrogen economy investment in the United States. SRS would be an ideal location for a commercial, as well as a prototype reactor, the Concurrent Technologies report said.American chemist Daniel Nocera cited some alarming conclusions about our future energy needs in his endeavor to meet them:
U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett, R-S.C., who represents the Aiken area, recently said he is confident South Carolina will be a finalist to be the site for the next nuclear reactor being planned by NuStart, a consortium that includes Duke Energy, Progress Energy and Southern Co.
Barrett said he thinks it is extremely likely the reactor ultimately will be built at SRS.
Concurrent Technologies said S.C. leaders should seek proposals for a nuclear energy park at the Savannah River Site to host commercial nuclear power plants capable of producing electricity, as well as hydrogen for the new hydrogen economy. And South Carolina should get behind a group of 17 Southeastern universities, including USC and Clemson, to win Department of Energy funding for a high-temperature research reactor at SRS, the report states.
Hydrogen is the most common element on earth, but isolating it for use as fuel requires significant energy resources.
A U.S. chemist is trying to determine how the world will produce enough energy to supply 9 billion people by mid-century -- and whether that can be done without pumping off-the-charts amounts of carbon dioxide into the air.Like many others, Constellation Energy Group believes that nuclear energy is going to make a comeback:
Daniel Nocera, 48, is working to achieve an old, elusive dream: using the bountiful energy in sunlight to split water into its basic components, hydrogen and oxygen. The elements could then be used to supply clean-running fuel cells or new kinds of machinery. Or the energy created from the reaction itself, as atomic bonds are severed and re-formed, might be harnessed and stored.
...Nocera cites a calculation by Caltech chemist Nathan Lewis that power demands in 2050 will be so great that just to keep carbon dioxide emissions at twice preindustrial levels, a nuclear plant would have to be built every two days. There's not enough room on the planet's surface for other widely touted solutions such as wind and biomass to have much impact.
Executives at Constellation Energy Group Inc., which has acquired two nuclear power plants over the past four years, believe nuclear energy is on the verge of a comeback.In a blog post earlier today, Rod Adams explained how the increasing cost of oil, coal and natural gas makes nuclear energy a much more feasible solution:
Mayo A. Shattuck III, Constellation's chief executive, said rising natural gas prices, dependence on foreign energy, plus environmental concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and pollution from burning coal make nuclear power a logical option.
"At the end of the day, we really don't have the choice but to invest in a new generation of nuclear" plants, said Shattuck, who called nuclear power "efficient and environmentally friendly."
There is plenty of available capacity to increase energy output from uranium, especially if the people in the groups organized to stop its growth learn how limited the competitors are. It is time to start a world wide effort to build new nuclear power plants.Come back this afternoon for more news from the NEI Clip File.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Comments