Sentences with phrase «make nuclear cost»

Not exact matches

Development cost the government tens of billions of francs, and it became a centrepiece of President François Mitterrand's push to make France a leader in aviation, nuclear energy and electronics.

Assuming that decision - makers make cost - benefit analyses when deciding to use force, China's doctrine calls for acquiring a nuclear arsenal only large enough to destroy an adversary's «strategic points» in such a way that the expected costs of a first strike outweigh the anticipated benefits.

It's also the date for an $ 8 billion bailout of some upstate nuclear power plants to begin, and more than 80 local government leaders are making a last - ditch effort to stop a plan that they say will cost electric utility ratepayers billions of dollars.

The report by the National Audit Office (NAO) claimed that decisions made in order to save money in the short term, like slowing the production of the Successor nuclear submarine, added an extra # 200 million to the overall cost of the project.

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.

«Will the cost for the nuclear tier be evenly distributed among all ratepayers in the state, or will there be some accommodation made for ratepayers who are not served directly from the power produced?»

Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns restated the UK government's view on its potential cost: «As the business secretary said last week, the Swansea proposal is more than twice as expensive as Hinkley nuclear power station, so we will continue discussions with the Welsh Government to look at the affordability of the case and do everything possible to make it a reality.

By comparison, nuclear and wind power are proven technologies that emit no carbon and whose environmental risks and costs are thoroughly understood and which can make an immediate difference for the better.

«While the up - front costs of building new nuclear generation are not cheap, in the long run it's one of the most economical ways to make electricity.»

Eliminating this financial risk premium makes nuclear power levelized electricity cost competitive with that of coal, and it becomes lower than that of coal when a modest price on carbon dioxide emissions is imposed,» the report says.

Because these cells can be made more quickly than bulky solar panels, the company thinks they might be cost - competitive with coal or nuclear power.

Meserve said he urged the panels to strengthen Japan's regulatory oversight of nuclear power, making nuclear safety the highest priority for plant operators, above cost and power production.

Today they make up 7 percent of the total — about the same as nuclear power — and are growing as costs come down.

It will take a 50 % or better cost drop to make nuclear competitive.

Combinations of high gas prices and significantly lower capital costs could make nuclear plants competitive with fossil fuel plants, but the bottom line is that in the current economic climate, commercial nuclear generation is not even close to being competitive with fossil - fueled plants and there is no easy path to a competitive market for new nuclear plants.

I am not against nuclear, but looking at the plants currently under construction and their escalating cost and slipping schedules, I have pretty much lost faith in the nuclear industry to make any noticeable contribution towards solving this problem.

A standardized design set in stone and approved by the NRC, that is free of political and legal interference from anti-nuclear activists, would make nuclear power the cost effective alternative energy source that its backers have always argued that it could be.

d. Changing perceptions of the risks and benefits of nuclear power leads to increasing public support for nuclear > allows the NRC licensing process to be completely revamped and the culture of the organisation to be changed from «safety first» to an appropriate balance of all costs and risks, including the consequences of retarding nuclear development and rollout by making it too expensive to compete as well as it could if the costs were lower (e.g. higher fatalities per TWh if nuclear is not allowed to be cheaper than fossil fuels);

The cost of energy storage that would be needed to make intermittent renewables capable of providing reliable power make intermittent renewables prohibitively expensive — at least five times the cost of nuclear.

Now, nuclear is a non-CO2 source, but it's had its own problems in terms of costs, big safety problems, making sure you can deal with the waste, making sure the plutonium isn't used to make weapons.

Faced with the on - going nuclear crisis in Japan — the costs of which could make the March earthquake and subsequent tsnuami the most expensive natural disaster the world has ever seen — nearby China may be moving to double its target for solar photovoltaic (PV) power capacity over the next five years.

Removing the impediments to development of low cost nuclear power will reduce the cost of electricity, make it near zero emission, make it available for all regions of the world and facilitate the roll out of electricity to everyone in the world.

And you've made no allowance for learning rates and the potential for nuclear power to reduce costs (e.g. from a factor of 100 improvement in fuel efficiency).

Peter Lang: Removing the impediments to development of low cost nuclear power will reduce the cost of electricity, make it near zero emission, make it available for all regions of the world and facilitate the roll out of electricity to everyone in the world.

The technology advances and plunging costs of cheap renewables make base load nuclear power redundant.

With the pit dug [somehow - a nuclear weapon could make a nice hole] the addition labor cost is rather insignificant.

It is far less problematic these days in that the new nuclear designs make great strides in efficiency, cost reduction and safety.

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 EU's unilateral climate policy is absurd: first consumers are forced to pay ever increasing subsidies for costly wind and solar energy; secondly they are asked to subsidise nuclear energy too; then, thirdly, they are forced to pay increasingly uneconomic coal and gas plants to back up power needed by intermittent wind and solar energy; fourthly, consumers are additionally hit by multi-billion subsidies that become necessary to upgrade the national grids; fifthly, the cost of power is made even more expensive by adding a unilateral Emissions Trading Scheme.

nuclear is by far the least cost way to make large cuts to global CO2 emissions 2.

As an example of a «Free Market» policy that could make a significant impact on cutting global GHG emissions and providing many other valuable benefits as well, assume the USA decides to remove the impediments to low - cost nuclear power.

More dramatically, fear of radiation led to extraordinary safety requirements for nuclear power plants, far in excess of controls imposed on other high - risk industrial facilities, which made nuclear power less cost - competitive and led to more reliance on coal.

There is, of course, an argument to be made about the lasting benefit of the home improvement vs the inevitable decommissioning and waste disposal costs of nuclear.

This makes very good sense to me, the cost would drop dramatically if we changed our regulation environment for nuclear, the new passive cooling reactors are much much safer than older reactor designs, and regional storage (which we have de facto anyway) solves the waste problem.

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.

This would make electricity costs go through the roof — recognizing that the high capital cost (levelized revenue requirements of cost recovery) of the nuclear plant (billions of dollars) would have to be recovered / billed over a short number of hours.

Drawing on case studies of past environmental debates such as those over acid rain and ozone depletion, science policy experts Roger Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz argue that once next generation technologies are available that make meaningful action on climate change lower - cost, then much of the argument politically over scientific uncertainty is likely to diminish.26 Similarly, research by Yale University's Dan Kahan and colleagues suggest that building political consensus on climate change will depend heavily on advocates for action calling attention to a diverse mix of options, with some actions such as tax incentives for nuclear energy, government support for clean energy research, or actions to protect cities and communities against climate risks, more likely to gain support from both Democrats and Republicans.

Double or tripple the price of nuclear fuels and it makes little difference to the cost of electricity; but do the same with gas and you nearly double or tripple the cost of electricity (not quite but you get the message).

Low - cost natural gas is making gas - fired power plants cheaper and more competitive to operate, causing less cost - competitive coal and nuclear to retire.

With Europe facing its own problems in reaching emissions targets and Japan strapped by costs associated with making up for nuclear power capacity that was lost in the disaster at the Fukushima power plant in 2011, Ladislaw said, «It's really about the United States and China trying to show — and actually define — what leadership is on this issue.»

-- Muller believes humans are changing climate with CO2 emissions — humans have been responsible for «most» of a 0.4 C warming since 1957, almost none of the warming before then — IPCC is in trouble due to sloppy science, exaggerated predictions; chairman will have to resign — the «Climategate» mails were not «hacked» — they were «leaked» by an insider — due to «hide the decline» deception, Muller will not read any future papers by Michael Mann — there has been no increase in hurricanes or tornadoes due to global warming — automobiles are insignificant in overall picture — China is the major CO2 producer, considerably more than USA today — # 1 priority for China is growth of economy — global warming is not considered important — China CO2 efficiency (GDP per ton CO2) is around one - fourth of USA today, has much room for improvement — China growth will make per capita CO2 emissions at same level as USA today by year 2040 — if it is «not profitable» it is «not sustainable» — US energy future depends on shale gas for automobiles; hydrogen will not be a factor — nor will electric cars, due to high cost — Muller is upbeat on nuclear (this was recorded pre-Fukushima)-- there has been no warming in the USA — Muller was not convinced of Hansen's GISS temperature record; hopes BEST will provide a better record.

29 December, 2017 — The technology advances and plunging costs of cheap renewables make base load nuclear power redundant.

As of 2012, nuclear accounted for 26 percent of the total generating capacity, according to energy ministry data, though it typically accounts for about a third of power generation, while only making up about 3 - 4 percent of energy costs.

The US Navy research has calculated the cost of making jet fuel from seawater on board their nuclear powered aircraft carriers.

If accident tolerant fuels prove successful, the cost of operating nuclear plants could decline by as much as 30 percent, making nuclear energy instantly competitive even with rock - bottom natural gas prices.

In case make licencing smarter and better the construction cost of nuclear could be redueced in time and financialy.

«A new study called Solar Vision 2025, issued by the Canadian Solar Industry Association and prepared by consultants Ernst & Young, reports the cost of solar power projects will be cut by more than 50 % before 2025, making the solar electricity competitive with electricity generated by oil, gas, hydro or nuclear plants,» said Dr. Shawn Qu, CEO and President of Canadian Solar.

All in all, despite its parallel commitment to high - cost nuclear arguably making it hard, DECC do seem to be trying to respond to the various pressures on them, not least from the Treasury.

I believe the full details of the electricity market reforms will be made public soon, including transparent nuclear costs.

As point of use solar competes at retail prices and not wholesale prices, this certainly makes it look as though point of use solar is cheaper than nuclear in India, especially when the costs of insurance etc. for nuclear are included.