IEA: The World Needs New Nuclear Build to Fight Climate Change

From Wednesday's edition of the Financial Times:

For the first time in its 32-year history, the International Energy Agency will next week urge governments around the world to help speed the construction of new nuclear power plants.

Although several countries, including India, China, the US and France, are already planning more nuclear plants, and others such as the UK are in the early stages of backing new reactors, others oppose any addition to nuclear capacity, including Germany and Spain.

However, Fatih Birol, IEA chief economist, said: "“We need a decision almost tomorrow if we are going to act before we reach a point of no return in climate and security of supply."

In an interview ahead of the release of the agency'’s World Energy Outlook, he said politicians needed to persuade reluctant voters that nuclear power was safe and necessary. They also need to create investment climates conducive to investors.

The IEA report -- the first to offer advocacy rather than analysis --– comes after the Group of Eight last summer asked the agency to come up with guidance on how governments could bolster energy security and combat global warming.

For more thoughts on the upcoming World Energy Outlook, visit We Support Lee. And come back to NEI Nuclear Notes next week once the report is released.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, IEA, Climate Change, GHG, Global Warming

Comments

Anonymous said…

"Faith Birol... said politicians needed persuade reluctant voters"

It sometimes works the ohter way around, as I believe has been mentioned on this blog before; voters need to persuade reluctant politicians, or at least persuade politiciians that they are not reluctant, that they like stable electricity prices, high-technology work opportunities, low-carbon power, energy security, clean air, etc., etc.

November 3, 2006 at 12:28 PM

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog