Skip to main content

"A Sad Story for Climate Change"

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.

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.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …