Sentences with phrase «build nuclear power plants with»

Not exact matches

In his role with ACU, Flynn flew to Egypt to convince officials there to hold off on a Russian offer (this one unrelated to ACU) to build nuclear power plants.

As our knowledge of nuclear power, for example, increased and we built more and more nuclear power plants, we discovered how little we really knew about the new world of technology we ushered ourselves into, with risks previously unknown and unanticipated.

Julia Walsh, with Frack Action, says she hopes that the governor will now act to stop the expansion or building of new gas pipelines in Westchester County, near the Indian Point Nuclear power plant, and upstate across Schoharie, Albany and Rensselaer counties.

Toshiba has a 60 % stake in NuGen, a joint venture with France's Engie, which has the contract to build a new nuclear power plant in Cumbria in the UK.

As the Green Party candidate, a party founded on environmental issues, Levy says he wants a ban on nuclear power plants in New York and also wants to see affordable housing and other buildings in New York made with eco-friendly and sustainable materials and practices.

He was widely credited with leading farmland preservation efforts in New York State and with scuttling efforts to build two nuclear power plants in Jamesport.

In a study published in March, it compared three scenarios: completing Ukraine's partly built VVER nuclear plants; phasing out nuclear power and supplying Ukraine's expected power needs with conventional plants; and the same plan, but with investments in energy efficiency.

You are a congresswoman's chief - of - staff and she needs your help coming up with a position on whether a nuclear power plant should be built in the district.

I myself have been accused of being a paid shill for the coal industry, because I argued that rapidly deploying solar and wind energy technologies, along with efficiency and smart grid technologies, is a much faster and much more cost effective way of reducing GHG emissions from electricity generation than building new nuclear power plants.

I often hear nuclear advocates proclaiming that «nuclear is THE solution to global warming» and that «no one can be serious about dealing with global warming if they don't support expanded use of nuclear power» but I have never heard any nuclear advocate lay out a plan showing how many nuclear power plants would have to be built in what period of time to have a significant impact on GHG emissions.

By the time that new nuclear power plants can even begin to generate any «carbon free» electricity, we can build and deploy hundreds of gigawatts of wind and solar generating capacity — and that's with today's mainstream, already commercialized technology, let alone the innovations like thin - film solar that are just beginning to enter the market.

I agree with the new head of FERC that the USA probably will never need to build another coal or nuclear power plant again.

Second, the scenario assumes no deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technology and a phase out of nuclear power by 204... with no new nuclear plants built after 2008.

Remember, President Obama tried not once but twice with Congress, to build ~ 13 new nuclear power plants.

Finishing the reactors would be more expensive than building new gas - fired power plants, but averaged over the 60 - year service life, the costs will be right in line with renewables, about $ 60 to $ 80 per MWh — except nuclear produces reliably, where wind energy is fundamentally unreliable and chaotic.

Nuclear defenders are calling for keeping things in perspective — fossil fuels, they point out, have many more costs and risks associated with them than nuclear power; and newer generation reactor designs are far safer than those built in Japan many decades ago (a number of US plants from the same era have the same or similar deNuclear defenders are calling for keeping things in perspective — fossil fuels, they point out, have many more costs and risks associated with them than nuclear power; and newer generation reactor designs are far safer than those built in Japan many decades ago (a number of US plants from the same era have the same or similar denuclear power; and newer generation reactor designs are far safer than those built in Japan many decades ago (a number of US plants from the same era have the same or similar designs).

The following graphs compare Section 201 with the call by some in Congress for a massive U.S. effort to build 100 new nuclear power plants in an attempt to move the country toward energy independence and significant GHG emissions reductions (click either image to enlarge):

He contrasted the advantages of renewables over nuclear power plants as their ease of decommissioning: there is no long - lived radioactive waste to deal with, and upgrading, for example, offshore wind turbines, is cost - effective because the foundations and infrastructure are already built.

The government plans to re-commission several retired coal power stations, and build more in the coming decade, with the remaining increase in capacity expected to come from new nuclear power plants.

Even compared with other newcomer nuclear countries, it is clear that no sub-Saharan African country is ready to build its first commercial nuclear power plant in the next five years.

Though modern reactors are operationally 10 to 100 times safer than the designs at Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, he says, nuclear power plants were not built with terrorists in mind.

Instead of doing this, why don't we simply fix the broken permit process for new nuclear plants and give modest tax incentives to industries or individuals that implement «no regrets» initiatives to reduce CO2, such as: — replace new coal - fired power plants with nuclear or natural gas (where a gas supply exists)-- replace newnormal automobiles with hybrids — replace Diesel for new heavy transport with natural gas — install energy savings initiatives (waste recycling, better building insulation, etc..)

The high cost of nuclear power also explains why so few plants are being built compared with a generation ago.

They clearly can not replace the electricity from their nuclear reactors with electricity from wind and solar, so they are building new coal - fired power plants and importing coal from the US: that's the «smutzig» part.

Few nuclear power plants are being built in countries with competitive electricity markets.

Renewable energy advocates responded that the Breakthrough findings had to be wrong because it takes so much longer to build a nuclear power plant — with much of the protracted timeframes owing to construction delays — than, say, a solar or wind farm.

Certainly the experience with some of the nuclear power plants being built now does not give rise to confidence in the claims for the theoretical Generation IV nuclear reactors.

However, along with that policy, we did not build as many power plants as we could have, particularly nuclear plants.

Let's take «settled down» to refer to a design with at least 5 examples completed and operating in developed countries, at least some of them built on greenfield sites (that is, not next to existing nuclear power plants which already have a lot of the necessary infrastructure).

I'm a Safety Engineering professional who is conscientious, detail - oriented equipped with 20 + years of success in construction site safety consulting and management, conducting field safety surveys and building inspections of industrial, commercial, residential, and transportation environments, including airports, high - rises, (fossil fuel, nuclear, and renewable energy) power plants, manufacturing facilities, and highways.