Sentences with phrase «less nuclear fuel»

Not exact matches

Perry has repeatedly said that storing fuel on site makes coal and nuclear plants less prone to shutdowns than other power generators in the event of disasters and attacks.

Many of the same warnings Mario Cuomo heard in the 1980s about Shoreham are the same ones his son hears today from supporters of Indian Point: Closing a nuclear plant will result in blackouts, a less reliable electric grid and increased air pollution as fossil fuels are burned to replace the lost emissions - free nuclear power; customers could face higher bills; more than 1,000 jobs will be lost, and tax revenue for schools and towns will dissipate.

In recent years, historically low natural gas prices have driven down wholesale electricity costs as plant owners switched to that fuel, making nuclear power less competitive financially.

That makes nuclear fission look a bit more competitive, at least until the price comes down on solar, wind, biomass, fuel cell, and other, less controversial emissions - free energy sources.

Some of the new nuclear science research programs, including the one at MIT, are studying new reactor designs and fuel cycles that scientists (and policy - makers) hope will make nuclear plants safer and cheaper to operate, and produce waste materials with smaller volume, shorter half - lives, and less appeal to terrorists and other would - be nuclear powers.

They say enriching uranium at a processing plant poses less risk than handling spent nuclear fuel, which is highly radioactive, at a reactor.

Once the construction costs of a nuclear plant are amortized, its operating costs are less than those of any fossil fuel — fired plant, including coal.

If the strong nuclear force which glues atomic nuclei together were only a few per cent stronger than it is, stars like the sun would exhaust their hydrogen fuel in less than a second.

They envision zero - carbon power plants that run on fuel made from hydrogen isotopes in seawater and produce less waste than today's nuclear power plants.

And the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 2006 suggested the practice of overcrowding pools for the storage of spent nuclear fuel rods — that has caused fires and explosions at Fukushima Daiichi, which stores far less used fuel than typical U.S. plants — could prove dangerous.

It's also critical to a future less dependent on foreign oil: Hydraulic fracturing, «clean coal» technologies, nuclear fuel production, and carbon storage (the keystone of the strategy to address climate change) all count on pushing waste into rock formations below the earth's surface.

O'Brien, J. E., Stoots, C. M., Herring, J. S., Lessing, P. A., Hartvigsen, J. J., and Elangovan, S., «Performance Measurements of Solid - Oxide Electrolysis Cells for Hydrogen Production from Nuclear Energy,» Journal of Fuel Cell Science and Technology, Vol.

The amount of fuel within the SMR - 160 buildings is less than 10 % of that stored at a typical present day nuclear plant.

Some of the most massive stars have lifetimes of less than a few million years before they exhaust their nuclear fuel and explode as supernovae.

According to a paper by Xuegang Liu of the Division of Nuclear Chemistry and Engineering, The Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing («Spent Nuclear Fuel Management in China,» NAPSNet Special Reports, Aug. 5, 2014), because China has chosen to use a closed - cycle fuel path, it has less need for long - term SNF storFuel Management in China,» NAPSNet Special Reports, Aug. 5, 2014), because China has chosen to use a closed - cycle fuel path, it has less need for long - term SNF storfuel path, it has less need for long - term SNF storage.

Recent expansions in green renewable power and carbon offset credits enabled us to convert and transfer our previous dependency on non-renewable energy sources such as fossil fuels and nuclear to a more sustainable and less harmful energy source.

I would dare humanity to live in a world where are the fossil fuel energy is instead produced by nuclear power: our «date with destiny» would be just around the corner; in less than geologic time.

By contrast, «alternative» fuels, other than nuclear, still depend on subsidies and mandates to get their foot in the door, except as trendy toys for people who can afford to pay more for less or in small - scale applications.

War, nuclear holocaust, famine, and less water, food and fuel.

Nader said, «We do not need nuclear power... We have a far greater amount of fossil fuels in this country than we're owning up to... the tar sands... oil out of shale... methane in coal beds...» Sierra Club consultant Amory Lovins said, «Coal can fill the real gaps in our fuel economy with only a temporary and modest (less than twofold at peak) expansion of mining.»

Western Europe with much less fossil fuel use than ever before, produces 50 % of its electricity from nuclear reactors and could provide the stimulus for others to re-instigate their nuclear production.

The political divide over nuclear energy, a carbon - neutral technology, is less pronounced than it is over fossil fuels: 57 % of conservative Republicans support the expansion of nuclear power plants versus 38 % of liberal Democrats.

On top of that at least some of the current nuclear waste we have could be used as fuel for these reactors, this making our current waste problem less of an issue.

Those include distribution - level efforts like tree trimming and automation, outage recovery efforts, and investments to improve customer resilience, they wrote, while the onsite fuel supplies championed by the coal and nuclear sector are seen as less beneficial.

Nuclear is already providing about 15 % of world electricity and algae is providing no fuel (less than 0.000001 %).

So while I agree that the global risks of nuclear are far less than fossil fuels, the local specific risks of nuclear seem far greater.

Finally, it should be noted that socioeconomic hypotheses associated with the lower emission trajectories (such as the one commented upon by Tim Worstall) imply a greatly increased use of nuclear and fossil fuels, especially cooal and natural gas, and the share of renewable sources reaching much less than the «80 %» claimed by the recent «renewable energy» IPCC report.

While the talking proceeds, governments that are new to the nuclear game are concluding that they may have to build their own fuel supply systems that are less dependent on suppliers with their own political agendas.

They believe the transition to a wind & solar powered energy grid could be made in two decades or less using current technology, and at an affordable cost — but only if the many roadblocks now being thrown up by nuclear and fossil fuel interests can be overcome.

Actually, if you properly do the math - and count if you count the whole nuclear fuel cycle, not just the power plant, not just the core of the reactor, but the occlusion zone, the uranium mining and so on, it turns out that wind power uses hundreds or thousands of times less land per kilowatt hour, then nuclear does.

In order to make sure this country is less dependent on fossil fuels, we must promote safe and sound nuclear power.

Other alternatives such as fuel from foodstocks, liquifaction of coal, nuclear, solar thermal, windmills, etc. are pretty far removed from the Moore's Law enabling factors so you're on target there but you didn't need to spray the guy with a mini-gun when far less would suffice to make your point.

Most of today's nuclear power plants have half - century - old technology with light - water reactors [243] utilizing less than 1 % of the energy in the nuclear fuel and leaving unused fuel as long - lived nuclear «waste» requiring sequestration for millennia.

Moreover, REN21 says renewables are becoming the «least cost option» with some countries at US$ 0.05 per kilowatt hour or less, below equivalent costs for fossil fuel and nuclear.

While nuclear energy is regarded as the lesser of the two evils when compared at an emission level to the burning of fossil - fuels, it may trump on the containment of the heat process, which burns in a contained nuclear reactor through an in - ward heat - chemical reaction called fission, but nuclear energy production is a chain from uranium mining to the toxic waste disposal and therefore as an entire process is an equally high risk environmental option.

He's long - resisted fuel economy increases and other measures to make the automotive industry less environmentally unsound, and supported nuclear power.

Although I definitely prefer nuclear to fossil fuels, I'm cautiously supportive of the Bowland drilling as it could mean less of our money will be going Gazprom's way in the short term (ie until we can expand our nuclear fleet).

Fossil Fuel is good stuff and Nuclear Energy is good stuff and we will advance the Sciences and get less Stupid.

PFIs must cease by 2020 direct, indirect, ancillary infrastructure and policy support for upstream and downstream fossil fuels, GHG - intensive projects, nuclear, large bioenergy and hydropower when more cost - effective and less damaging alternatives exist; All PFI investments must meet strict environmental and social development criteria and be assessed through a pro-poor, inclusive, climate - resilient and gender - responsive lens;

It's also critical to a future less dependent on foreign oil: Hydraulic fracturing, «clean coal» technologies, nuclear fuel production and carbon storage (the keystone of the strategy to address climate change) all count on pushing waste into rock formations below the earth's surface.

Nuclear is way down the list, though it has much less CO2 emissions than fossil fuels.

While utilities in Ohio, New York and elsewhere have sought «around market» charges after affiliated coal and nuclear plants became less competitive, Germany's large utilities are charting new paths forward as that country curbs its reliance on fossil fuels.

His lauding of nuclear over renewables is not about nuclear for climate at all and is less a defence / promotion of nuclear than, when stripped to it's essentials, a defence of fossil fuels.

But then I went on to envisage, at least in my own mind, a time when large fossil fuel generators had all closed own — mainly in order to avoid ruining our one and only habitable planet — and that the 24/7 power supply would be a mix of Solar PV, solar thermal (eg CSP), wind and the lesser sources such as hydro, tidal, geothermal etc having taken over the complete electricity supply — especially since Australia doesn't have, and is almost certain never to have, nuclear fission plants.