PainlessPump.com :: Nuclear Power | Articles A collection of blog articles about the most important topics in US and world green energy, economy, technology, environment, and Policy issues delivered by others in the community http://www.painlesspump.com/Nuclear-Power/Articles/Nuclear-Power/ Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:57:22 -0800 Joomla! 1.5 - Open Source Content Management en-gb PainlessPump.com :: Nuclear Power | Articles http://www.painlesspump.com/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-Power/Sweden-ready-to-change-course-over-nuclear-power.html Adelaide Advertiser
Saturday 7/2/2009 Page: 70

THE Swedish Government has agreed to scrap a three-decade ban on building nuclear reactors, saying it needs atomic power to avoid producing more greenhouse gases. Though Sweden is a leader on renewable energy, it is struggling to develop alternative sources, like hydropower and wind, to replace nuclear energy, which accounts for half of its electricity production.

If Parliament approves scrapping the ban Sweden would join a growing list of countries rethinking nuclear energy amid concerns over global warming and the reliability of energy suppliers such as Russia. Britain, France and Poland are planning new reactors and Finland is building Europe"s first new atomic plant in over a decade. The agreement was made possible after a compromise by the Centre Party, a junior coalition member which has long held a sceptical stance towards nuclear energy.

"I"m doing this for the sake of my children and grandchildren," said party leader Maud Olofsson. "I can live with the fact that nuclear energy will be part of our electricity supply system in the foreseeable future." Lawmakers decided to phase out nuclear energy after a referendum in 1980 when concerns about nuclear safety were running high in the wake of a partial meltdown a year earlier at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania.

Only two of Sweden"s 12 reactors have been closed and Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said he didn"t feel bound by the referendum because it didn"t specify how to replace nuclear energy. Swedish public opinion polls have shown growing support for nuclear energy in recent years because of the lack of alternatives. But anti-nuclear activists said reinvigorating nuclear energy would undermine the development of renewable alternatives. "To rely on nuclear energy to reduce CO2, emissions is like smoking to lose weight - it"s not a good idea," said Greenpeace spokeswoman Martina Kruger.

Visit my Blog...

]]> Nuclear Power Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:01:00 -0800 PainlessPump.com :: Nuclear Power | Articles http://www.painlesspump.com/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-Power/Sweden-to-replace-old-atomic-reactors.html Summaries - Australian Financial Review
Friday 6/2/2009

Yesterday, the government of Sweden announced that they would allow the construction of up to 10 new nuclear reactors on existing plant sites. Last year, the European Union said that Sweden would be required to generate 49% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Visit my Blog...

]]> Nuclear Power Mon, 09 Feb 2009 03:52:00 -0800 PainlessPump.com :: Nuclear Power | Articles http://www.painlesspump.com/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-power-has-key-role-in-fight-against-climate-change.html Age
Wednesday 31/12/2008 Page: 11

THE Rudd Government"s white paper on the final design of it"s emissions trading scheme has triggered a vigorous debate that will certainly continue into the new year. In defending the 2020 emission reduction target range of 5-15%, Climate Minister Penny Wong said she was "acting in the national interest" and protecting jobs and reducing energy costs on behalf of Australian industry and all energy consumers.

It would appear that the recent Poznan negotiations have achieved very little to further the United Nations" climate change agenda, which is aimed at having developed countries cut their emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020. Without a sensible energy policy in place, Australia will continue to be challenged by this. By contrast, the nuclear energyed European Union is laughing all the way to the global carbon bank. It is in Australia"s national interest to follow the EU"s example.

Professor Ross Garnaut"s final report - released at the end of September - concedes that nuclear energy could supply more than a quarter of Australia"s electricity by 2050 if a proposed policy based on "clean coal" and "renewables" fails. But he questions the technology on economic grounds and restates his earlier convictions that Australia is "not the logical first home of a new nuclear capacity".

In this, he and the Rudd Government are completely at odds with expert world opinion. Of all countries, Australia has the most to gain from domestic nuclear energy and a nuclear industry to serve the world. Last week in Canberra, Australian business leaders met Poland"s new ambassador, Andrzej Jaroszynski, to discuss the former communist country"s efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Unlike the Australian Government, which at times acts almost like the mouthpiece of the fossil fuel industry, Poland"s Government proposes an energy policy revolution that will gradually reduce chemical combustion by introducing nuclear fission.

The Polish ambassador indicated that Poland would be following the example of the European Union and anticipated a significant nuclear energy component in the national energy program by 2025. This has been the strategy followed by many polluting nations - with the exception of Australia - over the past few decades. Indeed, nuclear energy has the pivotal role in any battle against climate change. The Poznan delegates have already had some reassurance from the United States, the world"s No. 2 polluter.

President-elect Barack Obama has set a target of reducing US greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and by a further 80% by 2050, with nuclear energy playing the major role. In the US there are now 25 applications for new nuclear energy stations to add to the existing 104 that have been brought on line over the past 50 years. And many of these are licensed for another 30 years of operation and produce electricity at half the cost of fossil fuel generators.

In November, the chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Ziggy Switkowski, gave the annual Essington Lewis Memorial Lecture in Adelaide and endorsed domestic nuclear energy for Australia. He said: "I and concerned that the exclusion of nuclear energy from our national conversation and energy debate represents a triumph of political pragmatism over good policy." The Rudd Government should heed the opinions of ambassador Jaroszynski and Dr Switkowski and incorporate them into Australian energy policy without delay.

At the December 2007 Bali climate conference, Yvo De Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said: "I have never seen a credible scenario for reducing emissions which did not include nuclear energy." Including nuclear energy into an Australian energy policy would transform the token political gesture of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol to the practical and ethical high ground of a real contribution to the global climate change problem.

Leslie Kemeny is the Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy.

Visit my Blog...

]]> Nuclear Power Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:32:00 -0800 PainlessPump.com :: Nuclear Power | Articles http://www.painlesspump.com/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-Power/Russians-To-Sell-Nuclear-Technology-To-Venezuela.html Russia to build missile defence shield and renew nuclear deterrence. It seems the outcome of the last 20 years of short sighted (at best) and aggressive US policy towards the Russians has succeeded in recreating the cold war. I"m sure the same guys who have made so much from the Iraq war are very pleased with this outcome.
Mr Medvedev met Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez in Orenburg. Tthe Kremlin issued a statement calling their relations a “counterweight to US influence” and added that Venezuela sought “a widening of our presence in the region”.

“We are ready to consider opportunities for cooperating on the use of atomic energy,” Mr Putin told Mr Chavez during earlier talks in Moscow.

“Latin America is becoming a noticeable link in the whole chain of the emerging multipolar world. We will pay more and more attention to this area of our economic and foreign policy.”

The announcement of atomic assistance is certain to alarm Washington. Moscow has already angered the West by delivering enriched uranium to Iran for its Russian-built power station, amid fears that Tehran is secretly building a nuclear bomb.

Venezuela’s fiercely anti-American leader has long coveted his own nuclear energy programme, but insists that he has no desire to build an atomic bomb. He lavished praise on Mr Putin during his second visit to Russia in as many months.

“Today, like never before, all that you said on the multi-polar world becomes reality. Let us not lose time...The world is developing fast geopolitically,” Mr Chavez said. ...

Mr Medvedev said that the joint naval exercises between Russia and Venezuela would demonstrate “the strategic nature of our relations”. The Kremlin earlier announced that it was giving Venezuela a $1 billion loan to buy Russian weaponry.

Mr Chavez has already struck deals worth $4.4 billion since 2005 to buy jet fighters, tanks and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles. The two countries also edged closer in energy relations after Russia’s Gazprom and Venezuela’s state-run oil company struck a deal to create an “oil and gas consortium”.

Venezuela is the ninth largest oil producer in the world and a major supplier to the US, while Russia is the second largest oil exporter and has a quarter of global gas reserves. Mr Chavez said that the joint venture would be “the biggest oil consortium on the planet”.
Inferno maxx diet
Lasix to loose weight
Long term lamictal effects
B complex vitamins for nerve damage
Buy armour etche
Best skin care vitamins
Zinc chelate vs zinc picolinate
Zinc bar new york
Lamictal for bipolar depression
Gentamicin patient information
Reporting hiv test results
Maa ki adalat mp3
Does cialis work for multiple occasions
Mobic for tendonitis pain
I don't feel well lisinopril zetia
Calculator depo provera
Armour consultants private ltd
Herbal medicine vitamin cholesterol
Allegra shop sydney

Visit my Blog...

]]> Nuclear Power Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:18:00 -0700 PainlessPump.com :: Nuclear Power | Articles http://www.painlesspump.com/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-Power/Do-You-Prefer-Insulation-or-Radiation.html Homer without the donut"s plan to cover AMerica in nuclear reactors isn"t feasible from a financial point of view or a practical one, as the industry just doesn"t have the capacity - Insulate! Insulate! Insulate!.
Bloomberg suggests, and Joe Romm reiterates, that McCain"s plan to build 45 nuclear reactors by 2030 might cost the taxpayers almost a third of a trillion dollars, or $ 315 billion. Now that"s not much these days, considering what is being racked up for the Iraq war and the Fannie Mae debacle, but to paraphrase Everett Dirkson, a trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon you"re talking about real money.

And it would be nice if it could be done, but as Bloomberg and TreeHugger noted earlier, the only company in the world that can make the reactor vessels is already booked up to 2015.

As we also noted in an earlier post, perhaps there is more energy to be made by fixing what we have, by eliminating waste, by increasing efficiency. Perhaps we don"t have to Drill, drill drill! as some suggest, or Invent, Invent, Invent! as Tom Friedman calls for. Perhaps all we really have to do is Insulate, Insulate, Insulate!

Visit my Blog...

]]> Nuclear Power Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:07:00 -0700 PainlessPump.com :: Nuclear Power | Articles http://www.painlesspump.com/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-power-can-cut-emissions-and-still-maintain-supply.html Age
Monday 21/7/2008 Page: 11

THE unseemly haste associated with the implementation of Australia"s emission trading scheme seems to be driven more by political aspirations and the pseudo-science of special interest groups than sound environmental concern.

On a recent visit to Australia, Jeffrey Sachs, distinguished professor of sustainability from Columbia University, pointed out the futility of a highly politicised debate on emissions trading. He said that the science, technology and economics of any optimal new "clean" energy policy should be properly simulated, studied and understood by all national stakeholders. Sachs endorses nuclear energy as the pivotal clean technology.

The Australian Government could well learn from Australia"s uranium trading partners as it shapes its energy and climate change policies. Climate Change Minister Penny Wong should endorse the energy technologies that provide real energy security and offer the largest emission reductions at the lowest cost. Her aspiration for "renewables" and "clean coal" clearly does not fit this template. nuclear energy does.

The call for the Government to formulate a sensible energy policy, which will provide Australia with energy, water and hydrogen security and an emission trading scheme at minimal cost is growing. nuclear energy endorsement has come from former NSW premier Bob Carr, and chairman of the Commonwealth Bank and the Great Barrier Reef Trust John Schubert, as well as from Paul Howes, national secretary of the Australian Workers Union. Following the G8 summit in Japan, climate scientists and energy experts were quick to comment on the fact that Australia was the odd nation out."

Fifteen of the 16 participating nations were already committed to or were planning to adopt civilian nuclear energy to battle global warming. From the G8 "host group", Italy, which had for decades imported cheap and reliable nuclear energy from France, has recently announced its own program for domestic nuclear energy production. The other seven nations all had made a major investment in nuclear energy over the past 40 years.

From the "invited observer" group, China, India, South Korea and South Africa already have major and rapidly expanding nuclear industries. And Brazil, Mexico and Indonesia have firm plans for a program of nuclear development. Australia alone, through political prejudice, lack of education and the pressure of special interest groups, is denying the nation the domestic adoption of this best of all technologies for the provision of energy security and low-cost emission trading.

Just before the summit, French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced that his nation would build a second 1650 MW(e) "Generation 4" nuclear energy plant to supplement the one at Flamanville due to enter service in 2012. These units will provide electrical energy 30% to 50% below the cost of gas or coal.

For France, each of these units saves 2 billion cubic metres of natural gas every year when it replaces a gas-fired plant and 11 million tonnes of carbon dioxide when it replaces a coal power plant. For more than 35 years nuclear energy has been providing cheap, clean energy security for France. In 2008 it supplies 78% of the country"s electricity as well as providing reliable base-load power for surrounding European countries.

nuclear energy technology has received strong endorsement at recent conferences held by industrial groups in Australia and overseas. At the Emissions Trading Conference sponsored by the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia, the managing director of EnergyAustralia, George Maltobarow, wanted nuclear energy to be recognised as a less costly alternative to "renewables" and "clean coal" in any Australian carbon trading scheme.

At the same time in Barcelona, the European Union"s electricity industry executives held a major conference on the "Decarbonising Europe Trading Scheme." Of the delegates, 49% chose nuclear energy as the key technology to lower carbon emissions. 24% chose carbon capture and sequestration and 6% chose "renewables." And the carbon capture advocates recognised that this technology still does not exist. For energy security and lowest cost emission trading, the Rudd Government should follow Europe.

With regulatory protocols in place Australia"s first five nuclear energy stations could be built and commissioned in eight to 10 years. They are only "too expensive" and "too slow" if seen through the prism of political prejudice. Already the world"s 442 nuclear energy stations are averting the emission of about 2.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide annually.

Australia - the planet"s worst per capita emitter and also its premier "dirty coal" exporter - can only adopt a Kyoto-based ethical "high ground" in the climate change battle by embracing nuclear energy. As a significant bonus, the nation will receive clean, green energy security at a generating cost of about three cents per kilowatt hour. Without nuclear energy the purchase of 8000 kWh of electrical energy a year in Australia will still leave a "carbon footprint" of about 300 kilograms of fly ash and nine tonnes of carbon dioxide. A similar transaction in France would result in 25 millilitres of valuable radioactive waste. Without nuclear energy, Australia"s emission reduction targets of 20% by 2020 and 60% by 2050 may prove unattainable and the nation may be destined to decades of global disadvantage.

Leslie Kemeny is the Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy. He is a consulting nuclear scientist and engineer.

Visit my Blog...

]]> Nuclear Power Wed, 13 Aug 2008 06:37:00 -0700