Skip to main content

Ohio RPS Includes Nuclear Energy

By Eric McErlain
From the Toledo Blade:
Gov. Ted Strickland's energy proposal calls for Ohio's electric utilities to invest heavily in renewable and advanced energy, but it remains to be seen how much of a hammer the state would swing to make it happen.

The administration has not said what would happen to a utility if it fails to meet the requirement that 25 percent of its power supply come from "advanced energy'' by 2025.

That category would include fuel cell, clean coal, and nuclear technology as well as "green'' sources like solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, and landfill gases.

"We want that standard to be firm, but we also understand that it would be desirable for us to have a kind of flexibility as we move toward achieving that standard,'' Mr. Strickland said.

"I would expect the [Public Utilities Commission of Ohio] to continue to monitor the efforts toward achieving that standard.''

In addition to the broader 25 percent-by-2025-standard, the much-anticipated plan the governor unveiled Wednesday requires at least half of that, or 12.5 percent, to come from renewable sources.

And half of the total advanced energy standard must come from power generated in Ohio.
This is great news. All over the country, the industry has been fighting to have nuclear energy included in Renewable Portfolio Standards in recognition of its role in constraining greenhouse gas emissions. Bravo to Gov. Strickland for recognizing this in his proposal.

For more on climate change initiatives that recognize the role nuclear energy can play in constraining greenhouse gas emissions, click here.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
As a resident of the state, I can tell you that this is a paper tiger. Nothing is going to be done. I mean, you're talking about a state that gave us Dennis Kucinich, for cripes' sake. They can't even get approval for siting of an HV transmission line running from the southern part of the state to the Lakes area, something that might have saved us the trouble of the Northeast blackout of a few years ago. That's just for transmission infrastructure, mind you, not a generating facility. The intervenors have run amok. Meanwhile the state rusts away and absolutely bleeds jobs, and all the voters do is elect socialists like Sherrod Brown to the Senate.
August 31, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more