Skip to main content

G8 Gives Nuclear a Nudge

By

Some interesting movements at the G8 Energy Ministers’ Meeting this week in Rome.

The energy ministers of the G8 countries offered their thoughts on nuclear’s role in energy security and emissions reductions.

In a joint statement with the European Energy Commissioner, the G8 energy ministers called for international cooperation on nuclear energy:

“…We encourage all countries interested in the civil use of nuclear energy to engage in constructive international collaboration. To this end we support international co-operation to ensure the highest possible available technical standards…”

In another joint statement from the G8 energy ministers; the European energy commissioner; and the energy ministers of Brazil, China, Egypt, India, South Korea, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and South Africa recognized the importance of nuclear power for “those of us interested.”

Perhaps most compelling was an IEA background paper prepared for the conference, “The Impact of the Financial and Economic Crisis on Global Energy Investments.” This document duly notes that

“Nuclear technology is the only large-scale, base-load electricity production technology with a near zero carbon footprint, apart from hydro power (where potential is often limited).”

Ok. Some rather interesting verbiage, but what’s the big deal?

Answer: The people behind the announcements and the timing. The G8 Energy ministers are a powerful bunch and the stated, #1 objective of the G8 Energy Ministers’ meeting was “to define common strategies to cope with global climate change.” 

Next week, preparatory negotiations for the U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen are set to begin in Bonn, Germany. Then, it’s on to the full G8 meeting in Italy this July. It’s too early to tell what, if any, effect these joint statements might have on the climate change or G8 talks, but the timing couldn’t be better.

Oh, and about that European Energy Commissioner, it’s Andris Piebalgs. And he has a very interesting blog post here on nuclear power’s role in Europe’s energy portfolio. At “more than a third” of EU electricity supply, it plays no minor role. And it’s sure to continue to play a role as Europe continues to fret about secure, low-carbon energy supplies.

The open question is whether this will have an knock-on effect outside the G8. It should be an interesting summer.     

Written by Thaddeus Swanek

Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
People are starting to finally "get it." For those who don't read this short article. It explains how, quite simply, there is no alternative to nuclear.
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=340&idli=3
May 30, 2009 at 4:35 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