Sentences with phrase «caused by nuclear power»

What is even more starkly clear is that the number of deaths caused by nuclear power is far lower than those saved by it; in fact there's scant comparison.

Scientific evidence says the number of deaths caused by nuclear power is overwhelmingly small.

In 1995, he received the Goldman Environmental Prize for Asia as a result of his leadership in protecting the Korean people and their environment from the destruction caused by nuclear power plants.

Not exact matches

by Jason Smith Blue Sky Uranium finds cause for optimism in Argentina Uranium prices have plummeted in recent years, as Japan's nuclear power industry has continued to recover very slowly from the Fukushima disaster in 2011.

He developed practical models which will help to predict the consequences for nuclear power plants of fires caused by aircraft impacts.

A modern nuclear power plant, for example, must withstand fires caused by aircraft crashing into it.

A typhoon killed 17 people in Japan on Wednesday, most on an offshore island, but largely spared the capital and caused no new disaster as it brushed by the wrecked Fukushima nuclear power station, the plant's operator said.

Another was an 18 - meter - long delamination (fissure caused by layer separation), found at the Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant in Florida the same year.

Response: The Fukushima accident happened when flooding of power plant safety systems caused by the tsunami prevented operation of pumps needed to cool the nuclear fuel within the reactor and the fuel storage pools, causing that irradiated fuel to overheat.

On top of that, Japan faces an ongoing power shortage caused by its nuclear crisis and an already huge government debt burden.

Japanese players were urged to stay out of nuclear power plants and the Fukushima evacuation zones, while and several car crashes have reportedly been caused by distracted players.

This is the dilemma faced by tens of thousands of refugees in Japan who fled their homes when an earthquake and tsunami damaged Fukushima's nuclear power plant, causing three major meltdowns — the largest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986.

But the effect of it was to cause nuclear power operators, upon notification by the NRC of some intended safety evaluation per their responsibilities, to immediately hire INPO, instead, to perform exactly the same required safety deficiency investigations that the NRC was expected to perform.

I don't think Cosmic Rays were ever as much about it [AGW], as say, what to do about it; if «it» were indeed happening, whether by anthropogenic causes or combinations or other field properties - nuclear power is NOT the way to go; humans will adapt and survive over shorter time periods in climate than over the half - lives of nuclear fission byproducts.

I have been given some cause for hope (if not optimism) by Tom Blees» «P rescription for the Planet» — at least with respect to 4th generation nuclear power.

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

These two disasters, both caused by sloppy construction work and maintenance, and a lack of attention to detail, have put the kabosh on the nuclear power industry in the United States.

After nearly 60 years of nuclear power, 15,000 reactor - years of operational experience and only one accident that caused fatalities, it is clearly demonstrated, by virtually all authoritative studies, that nuclear is about the safest way of generating electricity.

Source: «Early Nuclear Retirements in Deregulated U.S. Markets: Causes, Implications and Policy Options,» MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (March 2017)-- Copy and artwork by Sonal Patel, a POWER associate editor.

While there is no immediate threat caused by retiring nuclear and coal - fired power plants, it's disingenuous to ignore the future threat.

Officials promised to replace nuclear power with wind or solar, but this caused the price of electricity to rise by 20 percent.

Nuclear power has multiple subsidies in the form of: - direct payments for new nuclear plants of 2.3 cents per kWh generated for the first ten years (in the US), — this is US$ 2 billion for a 1000 MW plant after ten years operation, - complete indemnity under the Price - Anderson Act for harm caused by a radiation release (above a modest insured amount), - changes to safety regulations to allow continued operation, - new plant construction loan guarantees, - direct subsidies for existing plants to keep operating as a jobs - protection program, and Nuclear power has multiple subsidies in the form of: - direct payments for new nuclear plants of 2.3 cents per kWh generated for the first ten years (in the US), — this is US$ 2 billion for a 1000 MW plant after ten years operation, - complete indemnity under the Price - Anderson Act for harm caused by a radiation release (above a modest insured amount), - changes to safety regulations to allow continued operation, - new plant construction loan guarantees, - direct subsidies for existing plants to keep operating as a jobs - protection program, and nuclear plants of 2.3 cents per kWh generated for the first ten years (in the US), — this is US$ 2 billion for a 1000 MW plant after ten years operation, - complete indemnity under the Price - Anderson Act for harm caused by a radiation release (above a modest insured amount), - changes to safety regulations to allow continued operation, - new plant construction loan guarantees, - direct subsidies for existing plants to keep operating as a jobs - protection program, and others.

It was merely on the basis that it seemed ironic that on the one hand there were complaints about possible wind installations caused by the Swiss desire (not universally popular) to phase out nuclear power, as evidenced in the second story.

It is expected that consumers will be able to choose electricity from renewable sources instead of fossil fuel - powered thermal (along with its problems in terms of climate change) or nuclear power generation (whose great risks again became evident with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, caused by the tsunami after the Great East Japan Earthquake in March 2011).

Additionally «nuclear maneuvers» (reductions), of 897 gigawatt hours added about $ 60 million during surplus baseload periods, caused mainly by (unreliable) intermittent power generation from wind.

So, the disruption to progress — which was caused primarily by the eco-evangelists and anti nuclear power protest movement lost 50 years, has delayed world progress by half a century so far.

A report released this week by The Brattle Group says that if four nuclear power plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania are allowed to retire early it will cause «substantially higher emissions of CO2 and other pollutants» and that there will be «a significant increase in electricity prices» not only in the two states, but also -LSB-...]

Wouldn't it be better to do the rational analysis first, and then secondly consider the constraints that are caused by politics, public opinion, public paranoia about nuclear power and catastrophic climate change and irrational beliefs about what is best for the environment?

I love the circular logic... CO2 causes the planet to warm causing sea level to rise and more storms on coasts... therefore do not build nuclear power plants... which would save the planet from the CO2 generated by non-nuclear power plants.

The Vinyl salesmen are also promoting Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who has been a serial shill for the nuclear industry («there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power»), loggers of the Amazon rainforest («All these save - the - forests arguments are based on bad science...») the lumber industry («clear - cutting is good for forests»), pharmaceuticals in water (it's «inevitable that a small amount of ingested pharmaceuticals will eventually show up at trace levels in wastewater»).

By contrast, we assess that large - scale expansion of natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power.»

Instead of terrifying the public with scare stories about climate change caused by CO2 emissions, why aren't governments actually doing something about it by replacing fossil - fuel power stations with nuclear ones (and crushing any protests which try to stop them)?

To consider the annual radiation caused by routine emissions from nuclear power stations as anything dangerous is a gross form of public deception.