Sentences with phrase «cost nuclear expansions»

There have been several utility companies that have struggled with high cost nuclear expansions recently like SCANA.

Not exact matches

1) Repeal the Triborough Amendment; 2) State pick - up of Medicaid costs from counties; 3) Roll - back of Medicaid entitlements / coverages to median national levels; 4) Major reform of SEQR process which blocks projects Upstate; 5) Repeal NY's participation in RGGI; 6) Cut 50 percent of staff at DOE, DOH, DEC in order to let the other half do their jobs, which means serving the people instead of feeding the bureaucratic monster; 7) Support expansion of nuclear plants at Oswego, construction of new plants elsewhere; 8) Tort reform to allow doctors to practice medicine, instead of fleeing NY; 9) Use the bully pulpit to support natural gas drilling and tell the envirowackos to grow up.

Despite the public focus on radiation risks, cost has long been the main obstacle to a substantial expansion of nuclear power generation, and will be even more as a result of Japan's still - unfolding effort to secure the wave - ravaged Fukushima Daiichi complex.

Placing so much emphasis solely on carbon footprints gives traction to foolhardy ideas such as carbon capture, iron seeding of the ocean and the expansion of nuclear power, which have no precedent in geologic history and seek to reduce net carbon emissions at the cost of much greater environmental damage.

For example, if a massive global nuclear expansion was one way of savagely reducing the amount of coal and natural gas burned in power stations (which it is) and the cost disadvantage of nuclear wasn't completely silly (which it isn't) then that could work.

But Mike Childs, head of climate change at Friends of the Earth, insisted the expansion of nuclear power could not go ahead without some form of public subsidy because of the massive costs of construction.

John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace, said: «The EU needs to adopt a science - based cap on emissions, ditch plans for dirty new coal plants and nuclear power stations that will give tiny emission cuts at enormous and dangerous cost, end aviation expansion and ban wasteful products like incandescent lightbulbs.»

And this cost projection assumes optimal conditions — the immediate implementation of a common global price or tax on carbon dioxide emissions, a significant expansion of nuclear power and the advent and wide use of new, low - cost technologies to control emissions and provide cleaner sources of energy.

I am aware of people making the argument that the big push by the nuclear industry for enormous government subsidies to find a massive expansion of nuclear power on the basis that nuclear power is «THE ANSWER» to global warming is a fraud that dishonestly and cynically takes advantage of growing concern about the very real problem of global warming, and I make that argument myself (because even a quite large expansion of nuclear electricity generation would have little effect on overall GHG emissions, at great cost, taking too long to achieve even that little effect, while misdirecting resources that could more effectively be applied elsewhere).