Skip to main content

"A Sad Story for Climate Change"

By
This is from the sub-only Climate Wire:
"I think CO2 emissions will increase tremendously in the next decades because more and more countries will use more coal like Germany. And that's a sad story [for] climate change," she said.
 
She is Claudia Kemfert, an energy economist at the German Institute of Economic Research in Berlin, so she knows her lumps of coal from lumps of uranium.

Another germane quote:
"We lack the necessary power lines to transmit wind-generated electricity from the north," said Johannes Teyssen, CEO of energy company E.ON. "This could lead to massive problems in the grid, even power outages."
Just gets better and better in Germany, doesn't it?

---


The Point Beach nuclear plant will be allowed to expand its power output by 17% this year, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced Tuesday.
Point Beach is in Wisconsin.
NextEra spokeswoman Sara Cassidy said Tuesday the expansion will increase total output by 170 megawatts, or enough to supply an additional 85,000 homes.
Or a bunch of hybrid cars.

The environmentalist in this story, Katie Nekola of Clean Wisconsin, tries a novel approach.
"It makes no sense that NRC rushed to approve the Point Beach expansion before completing their Fukushima safety review, especially when Wisconsin doesn't need the power,"
Odd argument, as environmentalist are usually pretty concerned about the future - and it's hard to deny we'll need more electricity generation sooner rather than later. Getting ready for it scarcely seems a bad idea.

Maybe Germany would like some of it in the meantime (if that were possible, of course.)

---
Standard & Poor's expects new nuclear projects being planned by Georgia Power and South Carolina Electric & Gas to proceed with "few material delays," the ratings agency said in a report released Tuesday.
Read the whole thing for more. This is about Vogtle (in Georgia) and Virgil C. Summer (in South Carolina).  I was a little puzzled by the timing of this report, but it seems recent enough to take account of Japan and the NRC's subsequent safety review:
The "primary challenge" for the utilities will likely be any design changes mandated by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission following a review of lessons learned from Fukushima, S&P said.
Fair enough.

Point Beach by moonlight.
Labels:

Comments

SteveK9 said…
I think Germany may prove to be rather unique. And, of course they may end up buying a lot of their electricity from France (nuclear). That may hurt German competitiveness, but at least it isn't coal. When Germany brags about their wind turbines people should just keep putting up the numbers on the total contribution to German energy use from wind, coal, gas, etc. Germany is not green.
May 4, 2011 at 8:47 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