NEI Nuclear Notes

Here's some brilliant logic from John Tierney at the NY Times on why using more energy and becoming more wealthy will "save the planet" : 1. There will be no green revolution in energy or anything else. No leader or law or treaty will radically change the energy sources for people and industries in the United States or other countries. No recession or depression will make a lasting change in consumers’ passions to use energy, make money and buy new technology — and that, believe it or not, is good news, because... 2. The richer everyone gets, the greener the planet will be in the long run. ... as people get wealthier they can afford cleaner water and air. They start using sources of energy that are less carbon-intensive — and not just because they’re worried about global warming. The process of “decarbonization” started long before Al Gore was born. ... As their wealth grows, people consume more energy, but they move to more efficient and cleaner sources — from wood to co...

Once again, the global anti-nuclear lobby has found a reporter willing to parrot its lies and distortions regarding nuclear energy and CO2 emissions. Stepping to the plate this time is Reuters reporter Nick Trevethan : Nuclear power's claim to be the answer to global warming is being questioned by reports suggesting mining and processing of uranium is carbon intensive. While nuclear power produces only one 50th of the carbon produced by many fossil fuels, its carbon footprint is rising, making wind power and other renewable energies increasingly attractive, according to environmental groups and some official reports. [...] "Nuclear is a climate change red herring," said Ben Ayliffe, Senior Climate and Energy Campaigner at Greenpeace. "There are safer, more reliable alternatives, like energy efficiency and renewables as part of a super-efficient decentralised energy system." What an utter hunk of baloney. Rather than explain things in detail again, here are the...

Some thoughts from Steven Aplin .

Last week, the Council on Foreign Relations sponsored an online discussion on nuclear energy and climate change between NEI's Steve Kerekes and Michael Mariotte of NIRS. To say the least, I think Steve got the better of the exchange, but I'll let our readers decide for themselves. Click here to read it right now.

From the AP : BEIJING,: China will reject any agreement that calls for binding limits on carbon dioxide emissions that will replace the Kyoto Protocol, an EU official said Wednesday. Guido Sacconi, chairman of a visiting European Parliament delegation, said that was the impression he got after three days of talks in Beijing with government and environmental officials. "In the private meetings we have had, particularly with Chinese politicians, there were of course some differences of opinion," Sacconi, who heads the European Parliament's Temporary Committee on Climate Change, told a news conference. "The main difference is, unlike the European Parliament or the European Union, the Chinese believe that it will not be possible, in the agreement which follows the Kyoto Protocol, for China to accept any binding obligations — this was one difference between us."

A discussion at Asymmetrical Information .

We Support Lee has the details.

We Support Lee has a great roundup of stories related to yesterday's announcement from the province of Ontario's 20-year electrical plan. Be sure to check it out. Elsewhere, Canada is interested in GNEP .

From yesterday's National Post Ontario's power system will rely on more wind, solar and other renewable energy sources, build more nuclear power plants and ask consumers to save more electricity to meet the province's energy needs for the next two decades under a sweeping $60-billion plan unveiled yesterday by the Ontario Power Authority. The plan would phase out Ontario's greenhouse-gas-emitting coal-fired power plants by 2014. "It's a directional plan: it's a road map," Amir Shalaby, the power authority's vice-president of planning, said. Just more good news from North America's best kept secret in emissions reduction .

Advanced Nanotechnology takes a harder look at S.280.

That headline is pretty easy to understand, isn't it? We've written about the topic or something related to it more times than I can count, but for every time we've addressed the topic, we always seem to need to do it again. After reading an article about the downside of biofuels in the Guardian , Geoff Wells wrote the following on his blog concerning nuclear energy and total life-cycle emissions: A similar absence of lifecycle accounting has distorted the nuclear energy debate. Nuclear power stations are being promoted as clean and green–as emitting no greenhouse emissions. However, a full life-cycle analysis takes into account not only what is emitted by the power station, but the combined impacts of mining, enrichment, fuel fabrication, decomissioning and waste storage. At the highest grades of ore, nuclear stations produce more energy than they consume. But at the lower grades of ore, which are far more abundant, nuclear power stations become net consumers of energy, ...

From EPRI : The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) today released a study that shows that the aggressive development and implementation of a full portfolio of advanced electricity technologies could reduce the economic cost of cutting future U.S. CO2 emissions by more than 50 percent while meeting the continuing growth in demand for electricity. “EPRI’s analysis clearly shows that if we can deploy a ‘full technology portfolio,’ we can provide lower-carbon electricity throughout the economy while simultaneously meeting additional demand for electricity due to population growth and economic expansion,” said Steve Specker, EPRI president and chief executive officer. Previous EPRI work has shown that absent investments in advanced technologies, significant reductions in future emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will result in higher prices for electricity and natural gas, and reduced economic growth. However, by developing and deploying advanced electricity technologies, suc...

On the campaign trail in Greenville, South Carolina, Senator John McCain answers a question about the role nuclear energy can play in U.S. energy policy:

Should the expansion of nuclear power be a goal of Canadian governments? That's the question they're wrestling with at The Great Canadian Debate .

And blogger John DeSio from the New York Press was there .

Back in May, we started to follow the story about how the Vermont State Senate was planning on starting a "clean energy" fund with $25 million in additional tax money from Vermont Yankee . After Governor Jim Douglas vetoed the legislation , proponents of the tax mounted an effort to override the veto -- an effort that I was unaware was supported by former Vice President Al Gore. He explained his support on June 14th in the following video address -- one which clearly experienced some technical difficulties: A "terrific" law, eh? Can someone please explain to me why placing additional taxes on one form of clean electrical generation in order to subsidize another can possibly be "terrific"? Lucky for the ratepayers of Vermont, the override attempt fell 12 votes short .

We've just been alerted that Senators Bingaman and Specter will be introducing the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007 today. Senator Bingman will be making a floor speech at 9:30 a.m. U.S. EDT which can be viewed on C-Span 2 . Expect the text of the bill, along with supporting documents, to be posted at the Senate Energy Committee Web site by this afternoon. More later. UPDATE: From the New York Times : The Bingaman-Specter proposal, dubbed the “Low Carbon Economy Act,” would set a target emissions cap for 2020 at 2006 levels and for 2030 at 1990 levels. Other bills set more stringent targets, but none so far have won majority support. The new proposal would grant permits to all emitting industries, including oil refineries, natural gas processing plants, manufacturing facilities and coal-burning power plants. Cars, trucks and airplanes are not covered, but owners would face significantly higher fuel prices passed on by oil and gas companies. Additional emissions permits could be bou...

Visit Iowa Voice . UPDATE : Stop by Vazdot and Seeking Alpha too.

Back in April, David Bradish posted an extensive debunking of a Council of Foreign Relations report on nuclear energy . Now, the author of that same report, Charles Ferguson, is back with another article in the pages of Foreign Policy magazine . But this time, our friend Rod Adams is stepping in to do the debunking : As is often the case with anti-nuclear arguments, there are some elements of truth to the above litany, but my response as a problem solver is to think and act on ways to overcome as many of the obstacles as possible. Fortunately, many of them are imposed by humans, so they can be solved by humans. It seems to me that it is easier to solve a problem like excessive licensing delays or lack of a sufficient skilled work force than it is to solve the basic physics, chemistry, supply or weather related shortcomings of other energy sources. Nothing I can imagine any humans doing is going to make the wind reliable, the sun shine at night or through clouds, crops grow in winter ...

With U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair leaving office today , I couldn't help but notice the following passage from a blog written by a Labor Party supporter from the U.K. about the political left and nuclear energy : It is the duty of the left to protect the livelihoods and interests working people whether it be jobs at the local level or combating climate change on the world stage. Therefore the left must endorse nuclear power as the only sensible way forward whilst striving for increased investment in renewable energy. Interesting.