Sentences with phrase «generation than nuclear power»

Not exact matches

More than 100 gigawatts of geothermal power (one tenth of the current U.S. electrical generation) could be developed for $ 1 billion during the next 40 years — at the full cost of one carbon - capturing coal - fired power plant or one - third the cost of a new nuclear generator.

PRISM can recycle used nuclear fuel, reducing repository size, and cutting the duration of its high radiotoxicity down to hundreds (rather than hundreds of thousands) of years, and thereby is in a position to play a key role in enabling a new, sustainable generation of nuclear power.

The NuScale Power Module's cost per kWh is competitive with other sources of base load electricity generation, and less than the cost per kWh of large nuclear units.

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 think that your comments have a bit of «begging the question» about them, in suggesting that the necessity of expanding nuclear power to reduce GHG emissions from electricity generation is an established fact, upon which any «debate» about addressing AGW must be based — rather than an unproven assertion to be argued.

New nuclear power is about the most expensive form of new power generation, more than wind, gas, or solar.

Among other points, Mr. Romm says the «fourth generation» form of nuclear power discussed by Dr. Hansen has no greater potential benefits than other technologies (solar - thermal power plants, for example) that were not mentioned but that could be deployed at large scale much more quickly.

Lets see if Josh can identify even one industry in the US with a safety record better than commercial generation of nuclear power.

However, you don't want to argue for a rational solution — i.e. cheap nuclear power (which also happens to be 10 to 100 times safer than our currently accepted main source of electricity generation, fossil fuel) and also happens to be a near zero emission technology (in fact much lower than renewables given they need fossil fuel backup, and given solar needs about 10 times as much material per TWh on an LCA basis).

Hell, more people have died due to the fast food industry than from nuclear power generation.

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).

• nuclear power will be substantially cheaper than fossil fuel electricity generation • cheap electricity substitutes for some gas for heating and oil for land transport (as in electric vehicles and low - cost electricity producing energy carriers).

When I offered the job to Mark, a former Breakthrough Generation Fellow, last summer, I told him that if he ever discovered that solar and batteries were cheaper, cleaner or otherwise better than nuclear power, he had to tell me at once, or I would fire him.

C. Technically, it is still possible to solve the climate problem, but there are two essential requirements: (1) a simple across - the - board (all fossil fuels) rising carbon fee [2] collected from fossil fuel companies at the domestic source (mine or port of entry), not a carbon price «scheme,» and the money must go to the public, not to government coffers, otherwise the public will not allow the fee to rise as needed for phase - over to clean energy, (2) honest government support for, rather than strangulation of, RD&D (research, development and demonstration) of clean energy technologies, including advanced generation, safe nuclear power.

Nuclear power could be far cheaper than fossil fuels for electricity generation if we removed the impediments.

Russia and China don't have excessive regulatory burdens and they also don't have any more nuclear power generation than anywhere else.

In 2016, coal - fired and nuclear power each contributed a bit over a third of the electricity, followed by natural gas generation, which provided a little more than a quarter of the load.

Nuclear has in fact started in the USA, although the raison d'etre was more connected to collecting enough fissile material for their military requirements rather than civil power generation.

To be viable solar generation plus transmission plus storage would have to provide reliable power on demand, 24/367 and the total costs would have to be cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear.

For example, ever since the 1990's Professor David Mills and Dr Mark Diesnedorf have been making statements like: — solar power is cost competitive with nuclear power now as a baseload generator, if the government would just give us some more money to demonstrate it — wind power is cheaper than nuclear and because the wind is always blowing somewhere wind can provide baseload generation.

The reason both countries, who have large readily available coal reserves are so heavily reliant on fossil fueled electricity generation is because, without carbon pricing, it's slightly cheaper than nuclear power.

The point is that IF / WHEN the adoption of nuclear power for Australia is put to the electorate, the majority (who don't have the financial luxury to agree to it at any price) will ultimately be influenced by the price being equal to, or less than, coal fired electricity generation or renewables.

A reliable generation system of wind, and solar with gas as backup is 20 % cheaper than a system of new nuclear power combined with gas.

• Kyoto Protocol • EU ETS • Australian CO2 tax and ETS • Mandating and heavily subsidising ($ / TWh delivered) renewable energy • Masses of inappropriate regulations that have inhibited the development of nuclear power, made it perhaps five times more expensive now than it should be, slowed its development, slowed its roll out, caused global CO2 emissions to be 10 % to 20 % higher now than they would otherwise have been, meaning we are on a much slower trajectory to reduce emissions than we would be and, most importantly, we are locked in to fossil fuel electricity generation that causes 10 to 100 times more fatalities per TWh than would be the case if we allowed nuclear to develop (or perhaps 1000 times according to this: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html • Making building regulations that effectively prevent people from selling, refurbishing or updating their houses if they are close to sea level (the damage to property values and to property owners» life savings is enormous as many examples in Australia are already demonstrating.

If we want to reduce the climate impact of electric power generation in the United States, there are less costly and risky ways to do it than expanding nuclear power.

The supply is unreliable, although more consistent than wind generation which is notoriously unreliable and thermal, nuclear, or hydro power (if available) is required to carry sufficient reserve in the grid system to compensate for any changes in solar plant output due to any changes in sunlight during the day.

Anyone still banging on about CO2 emissions in the electricity generation sector, ought to be banging on about nothing other than nuclear power.

And in China, wind power — despite accounting for less than 3 percent of electricity generation — recently overtook nuclear to become the country's third largest power source after coal and hydropower.

His company owns a dozen coal, gas and nuclear plants in Texas, and generation revenues for that region dropped more than $ 90 million last year, primarily because of lower power prices in the state.

Hansen, a respected climate scientist and an advocate for next - generation nuclear power, recently published a scientific paper showing that nuclear energy has actually saved more than 1.6 million lives, by displacing coal.

In short, if we want a 100 percent renewables world, with no coal, gas, or nuclear, we'll need to build more power generation capacity, faster, than at any time in history.

Nuclear energy is higher tech than other forms of power generation and so its workers make significantly higher wages than coal or natural gas workers.

:: Hyperion Power Generation and:: New Mexico Business Weekly Nuclear Power A Nuclear Hot Tub in Your Backyard New Generation of Nuclear Power Plants More Expensive Than Expected More Money for Yucca Mountain Makes It Hard to Get Behind Nuclear Option

via: SustainableBusiness and Cleantechnica Nuclear Power Hyperion Power Generation Sells Someone on Portable Nuclear Power Fusion vs Breeder Reactor New Generation of Nuclear Power Plants More Expensive than Expected

More Nukes in TreeHugger There's More Money in Nukes Than In Samurai Swords New Generation of Nuclear Power Plants More Expensive than Expected Concerns Over Nuclear Power Continue to Mount: TreeHugger Could Microgeneration Be as Powerful as Nuclear EneThan In Samurai Swords New Generation of Nuclear Power Plants More Expensive than Expected Concerns Over Nuclear Power Continue to Mount: TreeHugger Could Microgeneration Be as Powerful as Nuclear Enethan Expected Concerns Over Nuclear Power Continue to Mount: TreeHugger Could Microgeneration Be as Powerful as Nuclear Energy?

As Brown reviews, nuclear power is far less of a risk to public health than coal generation, and this difference is magnified when factoring in the health impacts of climate change.

According to the AP, new tests have shown that the levels of tritium in the wells at the Vernon, Vermont site are more than three - and - a-half times the federal safety standard.This comes hot on the heels of President Obama's interest in nuclear power, which included a call for «building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants» in last week's State of the Union address, plus $ 54.5 billion earmarked for nuclear power projects.

Eight New Nuclear Power Plants Must Contribute to «Post-Oil Economy» says UK Prime Minister New Generation of Nuclear Power Plants More Expensive than Expected Nuclear Energy - Screwing US Taxpayers Behind the Scenes