|
|
|
Misc News
|
Nuclear breaks out as America's
new 'green' darling 05/29/08 The nuclear drive underway caps nearly three decades of a freeze on reactor construction following the 1979 accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island (TMI) plant, which sparked panic over the risk of radiation, spills and contamination and inspired a generation of anti-nuclear activists. In the scramble to grab billions of dollars in government perks, 19 companies have applied for regulatory approval of their proposals for new nuclear reactor sites since 2007, and more are expected to follow. No new nuclear reactors have been built in the United States since the 1970s, though 104 nuclear reactors continue to operate, providing about 19-20 percent of the country's electricity. The growing desire for power that does not pollute the atmosphere, as well as the rising costs of energy, have tempered America's adverse reaction, said Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Scott Peterson. "We see generations coming up that don't have the scars of nuclear power, whether it is TMI or Chernobyl," said Peterson. Focus groups have shown that "for people 30 and under, 'TMI' means 'too much information,'" Peterson said, not a reminder of a nuclear disaster. A Pew Research poll released in March showed 44 percent of Americans favor promoting increased use of nuclear power, up five percentage points from 2005. The same survey noted a five point drop among those opposed -- 48 percent compared to 53 percent three years ago. "Any time we see gasoline prices rise, you see an uptick in support for nuclear power," said Peterson, citing fuel costs among the "pocketbook issues" like home heating fuel prices and major blackouts that influence public opinion. He also pointed to a major advertising and lobby effort to brand "nuclear energy as clean air energy" that began in the late 1990s, around the time that the Kyoto Protocol was agreed. The drive then kicked into high gear in 2005 with the passage of the Energy Policy Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush, who has hailed nuclear power as "limitless." The government's offer of 18.5 billion dollars in loan backing and four billion dollars in tax breaks make the prospect of reactor-building more lucrative, though experts warn of the multi-billion-dollar price tag. "It is exciting to think that for the first time in 30 years we stand to launch a nuclear revival," said Mike Wallace, chair of Unistar LLC, a joint venture of Baltimore-based Constellation Energy and the French electricity company EDF. Unistar hopes to build a US EPR -- industry lingo for an evolutionary power reactor designed by the French company Areva -- at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland by 2015. Things in the industry have changed after the long lull, however. "Back then we had an enormous skilled workforce but ... that craftforce has declined in size and the most critical skill sets are going to be in shorter supply," Wallace said. Other causes for concern were highlighted this month in a report by the Congressional Budget Office, including: "recent volatility in natural gas prices and construction costs, nuclear power's history of construction cost overruns, and uncertainty about future policy on carbon dioxide emissions." Estimates of the costs to build a single reactor range from six to 12 billion dollars. Author and nuclear engineer James Mahaffey said that a nuclear renaissance is "inevitable" because "the world is becoming more industrialized, not less," but said Americans may not be ready for the sticker shock. "Lately the cheap power is turning out to have secondary effects. The pollution aspects of coal are beginning to have an impact and we are looking back at nuclear power," Mahaffey said. "Nuclear power in the foreseeable future is going to be a more expensive option," he said. Anti-nuclear activists point to lingering concerns about disposal -- there are no approved nuclear waste dumps in the United States so the plants store their waste on site -- as well as a shortage of skilled personnel and infrastructure. "At this point the belief that there is a nuclear renaissance underway is premature," said Michael Mariotte, director of the Nuclear Information and Research Service. "From our perspective it is pure folly to consider new reactors when we don't know what we are going to do with the waste from the current reactors."
Leading On
Climate Change By Tony Blair The climate
change bill that senators are to begin debating next week is a hugely important
signal of intent on behalf of Radical reduction is unlikely to happen through voluntary action alone. Measures in the bill, through a mandatory cap-and-trade scheme, would reduce emissions 70 percent from 2005 levels by 2050. These cuts would be based on a carbon market incentive system that moves with the grain of action around the globe. Over the past few years, the debate on climate change has shifted profoundly. The scientific consensus that human activity is causing global warming has become overwhelming. The effect of unabated climate change is shocking and, as was shown by the report of Sir Nicholas Stern -- the first authoritative study of the economics of climate change, commissioned by the British government in 2006 -- it is far riskier economically to ignore climate change than to act to abate it. New environmental technologies, in fact, already drive a multibillion-dollar industry. Last year, an estimated $148 billion was invested in clean-energy technologies, companies and projects, a 60 percent increase from 2006. Round the planet, people are developing exciting technologies, changing their behavior and agitating for action so that responsibility on the environment will come in a way that is consistent with necessary economic growth. Meanwhile, fears over energy security create a synergy with the climate debate. With oil above $130 a barrel, there are reasons to act irrespective of concern for the atmosphere. Reducing carbon dependency also goes to the heart of our basic security needs for the future. I have long thought that energy policy is only a small way behind defense in terms of strategic importance to our way of life. Much is
happening abroad. Europe has introduced the Emissions Trading System, with over
half of emissions now tradable; despite the early teething troubles to be
expected from any new policy framework, the system is delivering emissions
reductions and sending a clear, market-based signal to companies across the
continent. The Group of Eight major industrialized nations will have climate change high on their agenda at their July meeting. At the same time, President Bush will hold the Major Economies Meeting. The Clean Development Mechanism, while also by no means perfect, has established a basis for channeling resources efficiently to finance emissions reduction across the developing world. Clearly, many
countries and companies are realizing that, far from being a detriment to their
economies, acting early to cut emissions can increase productivity and give them
a competitive edge. And it's not just outside the Hanging over
all of this progress, however, is a political reality: There will be no
consequential action on climate change unless there is a global deal. For that
to happen, the Science shows
that the world must move to a low-carbon economy. That's why
the legislation sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer, Joe Lieberman and John Warner
matters. It says -- and shows -- that The U.N. process has produced the formula: There should be common but differentiated obligations for developing and developed nations. A great ambition, but what does it mean? That is the subject of the project I am leading that will produce its first report at the end of June. Without an
American commitment, a global deal is impossible. This is an important moment
where the The writer was British prime minister from 1997 to 2007. He recently launched the Breaking the Climate Deadlock initiative to promote a new global agreement on climate change.
|
|
Send mail to
gjduarte@eaglealliance.org with
questions or comments about this web site.
|
