Sentences with phrase «against nuclear risk»
Insuring yourself against nuclear risk is probably unnecessary.
https://www.effectivecoverage.com/ Not exact matches
WASHINGTON (AP)-- CIA Director Mike Pompeo said Tuesday that North Korea is moving «ever closer» to putting Americans at risk and that he believes leader Kim Jong Un won't rest until he's able to threaten multiple nuclear attacks against the US at the same time.
One could also argue that the US would try to avoid using nuclear weapons against North Korea in the case of a retaliation attack in order to prevent larger tensions with Beijing and more risks to South Korea.
Likewise the core NATO members all have nuclear weapons so they would know better than to risk a nuclear war against Russia.
But in the post-Rio world, the environmental risk of spent nuclear fuel must be weighed against the potential environmental harm of the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels.
This changes the policy in such a way as to remove the list of covered perils and replace it with the words «We insure against risk of direct physical loss or damage...» followed by a few obvious exclusions such as nuclear war.
If you like, you can even endorse your The Village At Fox Creek to cover open perils, which insures against risk of direct physical loss by any cause, subject to exclusions such as nuclear hazards and intentional acts.
I am therefore surprised that Ike Solem (# 14), Joseph Romm (# 15) and SecularAnimist (# 18) all prosetalise about the risks we face and the benefits of wind and solar energy solutions but, nevertheless, appear to turn their faces against any major expansion in the use power from nuclear fission, apparently regardless of the type of fission.
Even so, if you weigh the risks (fully considered and in the light of current technology as well as developing technology) against the benefits, nuclear is by far and away the best, cheapest and safest form of energy production.
From the starting point of today, what are relative risks, costs and benefits of fossil fuel production and against current and emerging nuclear technology?
EPA's «Goal Computation Technical Support Document» (TSD) accompanying the Federal Register Notice allows generation from «under construction» and «at risk [of retirement]» nuclear plants to count against the affected generation (in the denominator, as indicated in the equation below) used to compute the emission rate goals for each state.24
The 74 - page report assesses nuclear power's key problems and offers recommendations to strengthen nuclear plant safety, better protect facilities against sabotage and attack, ensure the safe disposal of nuclear waste, and minimize the risk that nuclear power will help more nations and terrorists acquire nuclear weapons.
Perhaps most significant, hydrogen - powered electricity is now competitive with nuclear, LNG and coal in carbon and risk - adjusted terms (ie against nuclear).
Almost goofily, behind Official Washington's latest warmongering «group think,» the U.S. has plunged into a New Cold War against Russia with no debate about the enormous costs and the extraordinary risks of nuclear annihilation, Gray Brechin observes.
Drawing on case studies of past environmental debates such as those over acid rain and ozone depletion, science policy experts Roger Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz argue that once next generation technologies are available that make meaningful action on climate change lower - cost, then much of the argument politically over scientific uncertainty is likely to diminish.26 Similarly, research by Yale University's Dan Kahan and colleagues suggest that building political consensus on climate change will depend heavily on advocates for action calling attention to a diverse mix of options, with some actions such as tax incentives for nuclear energy, government support for clean energy research, or actions to protect cities and communities against climate risks, more likely to gain support from both Democrats and Republicans.
This framing of the issue could thus end up pitting members of these two groups — already at odds over climate change, nuclear power, gun control, and various other risks — against one another.
If there were any chance that more nuclear energy increased the risk of nuclear war, I would be against it.
So lets offset against this virtual certainty the risks of nuclear power, specifically the IFR.
Friends of the Earth Europe has expressed alarm that the Heads of State cast a role for nuclear power in Europe's energy future, without offering solutions to its unsolved problems: how to treat and store waste for thousands of years, the risk of serious accidents, the proliferation of nuclear weapon material and how to secure nuclear plants against terrorist attacks.
This changes the policy in such a way as to remove the list of covered perils and replace it with the words «We insure against risk of direct physical loss or damage...» followed by a few obvious exclusions such as nuclear war.
The result, these experts say, is tantamount to a nuclear weapons standoff: Companies with formidable patent portfolios can use them as cudgels against rivals, while those with fewer patents risk being eaten alive in court.
Still, the NPR seems to go further than that by extending the aims of retaining nuclear capability to the «achievement of the US objectives if deterrence fails» (p 20) and peculiarly to «hedging against prospective and unanticipated risks» (p 24).