Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
A review of the underlying fundamentals of nuclear energy
Jerome a Paris, The Oil Drum
…I’ll start by stating [my biases]: I’m favorable to nuclear, as it is vastly superior in all respects to the coal-fired plants that dominate the industry in many countries, but I think we should focus policy first on conservation, then on renewable energy (in particular wind power, the sector I finance), and then only on nuclear.
But that does mean that I consider nuclear to be invitable and thus necessary. I would like to note also that I am influenced by the French experience, which is highly successful, and has a number of traits which I think are desirable for the industry (strong State involvement, including for the financing of the sector, strong and independent regulation) and which may reflect my personal biases (the engineers that built and run the sector are alumni of the same university as me).
The macro-issues surrounding nuclear that I can see are as follows:
- is it safe? In particular, can it withstand a major terrorist attack?
- what do we do with the waste?
- do we have enough uranium anyway?
- is it cost effective? And do the announced costs include everything?
- aren’t there better options to pursue before nuclear?
…I expect nuclear to be pursued, but it would be better if it were done with the following conditions fulfilled:
- strict public oversight (which should exclude a number of countries from pursuing it);
- full transparency in waste management and accounting;
- democratic support, and
- ideally, public funding.
(11 March 2007)
Comment by Jerome a Paris.
Also posted at Daily Kos.
How green is nuclear power?
Mark Clayton, Christian Science Monitor
Some call it a carbon-free alternative to fossil fuels, but others point to significant environmental costs.
—–
In Kansas, where winds blow strong, the push for clean energy includes not only new wind turbines but also new nuclear-power plants as part of a “carbon-free” solution to climate change.
It’s an idea that may be catching on. At least 11 new nuclear plants are in the design stage in nine states, including Virginia, Texas, and Florida, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute website.
But that carbon-free pitch has researchers asking anew: How carbon-free is nuclear power? And how cost-effective is it in the fight to slow global warming?
“Saying nuclear is carbon-free is not true,” says Uwe Fritsche, a researcher at the Öko Institut in Darmstadt, Germany, who has conducted a life-cycle analysis of the plants. “It’s less carbon-intensive than fossil fuel. But if you are honest, scientifically speaking, the truth is: There is no carbon-free energy. There’s no free lunch.”
Nuclear power has more than just a little greenhouse gas attached to it, when mining uranium ore, refining and enriching fuel, building the plant, and operating it are included. A big 1,250 megawatt plant produces the equivalent of 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year during its life, Dr. Fritsche says.
That’s still much less than coal-fired power plants and natural-gas turbines. It even does better than solar power and small-scale hydro projects. However, the gap with solar is closing and emissions from manufacturing photovoltaic panels are now on par with nuclear, a new study funded by the US Energy Department finds.
(7 March 2007)
Energy Alberta prepare to introduce nuclear
Wold Nuclear News
Energy Alberta Inc (EA) want to use a nuclear power plant in their oil sand mining operations by 2016.
Wayne Heunset of EA told Reuters that he imagines a C$5.5 billion ($4.7 billion) project could see a two-unit Candu plant operate in the north of the province of Alberta. The first of the twin reactors could come online by 2016, the second following a year later.
(5 Mar 2007)
Bursik wants to sack nuclear safety office head over Temelin
Staff, Prague Daily Monitor
Czech Environment Minister Martin Bursik wants to remove Dana Drabova from the post of head of the State Authority for Nuclear Safety (SUJB) because of recent defects at the Temelin nuclear power station, the Czech Television said in its evening newscast today.
“It is time for Mrs Drabova to get nervous at least,” Bursik told CT, adding Drabova was responsible for the defects and should have proposed specific steps instead of disparaging the problems.
Some 2,000 litres of slightly radioactive water leaked in Temelin two weeks ago. Another 1,000 litres leaked last Tuesday, forcing Austria, a fervent critic of the power station, say it is planning an international lawsuit against Temelin. ..
(12 Mar 2007)
