China Takes Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead

From The Age (Australia):

CHINA has surged past the United States to become the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, beating even the most pessimistic predictions that it would take at least another year to outstrip the US.

The findings, by a Dutch environmental agency that advises the Netherlands Government, sharply raises the stakes as world leaders try to reach a climate accord — to include China and the US — to succeed the 1997 Kyoto protocol when it expires in 2012.

Australia, which is hosting the next APEC summit, has been lobbying the US and China to strike a regional deal on climate change in Sydney in September. But in its first action plan on climate change, released this month, China committed itself to improving energy efficiency but rejected mandatory emission cuts, as the US is demanding, dealing such hopes a blow.

Comments

John Fitzpatrick said…

The United States, on a per person basis, emits four times as much carbon as China. See the numbers here

June 20, 2007 at 5:43 PM

Anonymous said…

So, by that measure, all we have to do is start popping out more kids so our per capita carbon output drops below that of China? Probably total carbon emissions is more important on a global basis than per capita measures.

June 21, 2007 at 7:39 AM

Anonymous said…

The US per capita emissions may be 4 times China but the US per capita GPA is 6 times China. China's rapidly growing economy combined with the a relatively high carbon emission rate per unit of economic activity should raise a concern among those who worry about CO2. Also, the "carbon efficiency" of the US and other developed countries is increasing while China's does not seem to be.

June 21, 2007 at 8:53 AM

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