Sentences with phrase «existing nuclear waste»

Using just our existing nuclear waste, we can power the entire planet for centuries.

It is perfectly safe and provides an opportunity to recycle existing nuclear waste into hundreds of years of energy.

2) Can be powered with existing nuclear waste, sufficient to give hundreds of years of power with no further need for uranium mining.

«Unlike today's nuclear reactor, the IFR [integral fast reactor] can generate unlimited amounts of inexpensive clean power for hundreds of thousands of years... It provides an excellent solution for what to do with our nuclear waste because it can use our existing nuclear waste for fuel and it is significantly more proliferation - resistant than other methods of dealing with nuclear waste... The IFR is also inherently safe.

Not exact matches

Something could be missing from your next electric bill: a fee that electric customers have been paying for 31 years to fund a federal nuclear waste site that doesn't exist.

Small modular reactors may help with two of the biggest challenges facing the nuclear industry: the growing stores of waste from existing reactors and residue from the mass production of nuclear weapons as well as the overall safety of nuclear power.

Transatomic Power Corp., a nuclear energy startup, is developing a reactor that runs on waste from existing reactors.

Consequently, our proposed CES would include a percentage of natural gas when replacing existing coal capacity, 25 coal with carbon capture and sequestration, waste - to - energy, biomass, energy efficiency and nuclear power.

[1] The Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012 defines «clean» electricity as «electricity generated at a facility placed in service after 1991 using renewable energy, qualified renewable biomass, natural gas, hydropower, nuclear power, or qualified waste - to - energy; and electricity generated at a facility placed in service after enactment that uses qualified combined heat and power (CHP), [which] generates electricity with a carbon - intensity lower than 0.82 metric tons per megawatt - hour (the equivalent of new supercritical coal), or [electricity generated] as a result of qualified efficiency improvements or capacity additions at existing nuclear or hydropower facilities -LSB-; or] electricity generated at a facility that captures and stores its carbon dioxide emissions.»

Our recommendations include better enforcement of existing regulations, expedited transfer of nuclear waste into dry casks, strengthened reactor security requirements, and higher safety standards for new plants.

The report concludes with a dozen recommendations for policymakers, including reducing subsidies to existing reactors, adopting market - oriented approaches to uranium mining royalties and waste management financing, and incorporating the costs of preventing nuclear proliferation and terrorism into economic assessments of new reactors.

In the United States, some 60,000 tons of nuclear waste have already been produced, and existing reactors add some 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel annually.

And just like existing nuclear power plants, they produce long - lived, highly radioactive nuclear waste for which no safe management and permanent storage exists.

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 U.S., France and the U.K. continue to build nuclear power stations without addressing the problem of existing waste, which is reaching potentially dangerous levels.

The good news is that it can be done with existing technology, by cutting energy waste, expanding the use of renewable sources, growing trees and crops (which remove carbon dioxide from the air) to turn into fuel, capturing the gas before it is released from power stations, and - maybe - using more nuclear energy.

Existing nuclear reactors use less than 1 % of the energy in uranium, leaving more than 99 % in long - lived nuclear waste.

Although for PR reasons I'd rebrand generation IV reactors as «Nuclear Waste De-energisers» given that they reduce rather than enlarge existing stockpiles of nuclearNuclear Waste De-energisers» given that they reduce rather than enlarge existing stockpiles of nuclearnuclear waste.

However, nuclear waste storage remains a significant problem with existing reactor technology, not to mention public concern, especially in the wake of Japan's recent earthquake and tsunami disaster.

Or invest in generating more power with nuclear — in particular recycling our existing waste with passively cooled reactors.

Instead, the federal government can deploy existing technology to keep nuclear waste permanently decentralized, as it is now.