Skip to main content

A Preview of Graham-Kerry-Lieberman

By

x5ljciodc5o8yhf9zin7_thumb[1] Some news about the climate change legislation being developed by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) emerged from meetings they had with industry representatives.

According to several sources in the meeting room, the bill will call for greenhouse gas curbs across multiple economic sectors, with a target of reducing emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. Power plant emissions would be regulated in 2012, with other major industrial sources phased in starting in 2016.

That’s fairly ambitious and exactly the same amounts as the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the house last summer. The particulars of the bill get a bit of a rehearsal in the story. Not much on nuclear energy, except this:

Overall, the bill will include eight titles: Refining, America's Farmers, Consumer Refunds, Clean Energy Innovation, Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear and Energy Independence, according to sources.

Normally, we’d wait until the official unveiling of the bill to tell you something about it, but since this has hit the New York Times and mostly been affirmed by Sen. Kerry, it’s worth noting if not yet quite worth discussing. Consider this an early warning – we’ll go over the nuclear title when the legislation is officially unveiled.

---

Poland has chosen a site for a new nuclear plant.

The survey identified Zarnowiec, located on the Baltic Sea 40km from Gdansk, as the best location for the first NPP to be built in the country by 2020. This site is near the site of Baltic NPP, which is currently under construction in the Neman district of Kaliningrad.

Poland tried to build a plant here in 1972, but did not finish it. Maybe that’s the site that will house the new reactor.

And why the interest in a new plant?

Nuclear new build will contribute to reducing the country’s reliance on coal, which currently accounts for 90% of Poland’s electricity production. In addition, over the last few years Poland has experienced significant economic growth and electricity consumption is expected to rise by 80%-93% by 2025.

We don’t know where Poland is with carbon capture and sequestration, but the country has determined that a nuclear plant can take over some of the load. And it can.

Quite the toasty buffet offered by this Zarnowiec hotel. For the record, that’s not a nuclear energy plant behind it.

Labels:

Comments

Sterling Archer said…
We don’t know where Poland is with carbon capture and sequestration

The same place as every other country: nowhere.
March 19, 2010 at 6:31 AM
Phil said…
Any and all curbs on carbon emissions are instantly de facto support of nuclear power.

There is absolutely no possible way to cut carbon emissions without massive growth and adoption of nuclear power.
March 19, 2010 at 11:00 AM
D Kosloff said…
Most of the people who support carbon curbs believe that the way to support carbon emissions is to use massive growth and adoption of magic.
March 22, 2010 at 10:42 AM
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