Sentences with phrase «more about nuclear energy»

Readers interested in learning more about nuclear energy from the inside should take a look at RadDecision, a techno - thriller novel about the American nuclear power industry.

Not exact matches

Assembly Democrats grilled Gov. Andrew Cuomo's energy officials for more than four hours Monday about a plan executed by the Public Service Commission and a major energy company that will keep three upstate nuclear power plants alive for the next 12 years.

Despite long - standing public concern about the safety of nuclear energy, more and more people are realizing that it may be the most environmentally friendly way to generate large amounts of electricity.

When a museum exhibit touting U.S. efforts in nuclear power came to San José, Costa Rica's capital city, every afternoon Chang - Díaz rushed to the San José International Airport, where the display was located, to learn more about using atoms for energy.

But during the conference, Remo was struck by a realization already familiar to attendees more experienced in the subject: When you're talking about deflection, nothing can match the energy density of nuclear weapons.

X-ray crystallography and, more recently, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy are the most common tools to see how the amino acids in a protein chain arrange themselves based on their attractive and repulsive energies, but they say nothing about the forms the proteins may take along the way, Onuchic said.

The American Physical Society's Panel on Public Affairs has produced a number of excellent and more extensive reports about energy and nuclear weapons issues.

«Sens. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) asked about the situation in a Tuesday letter to Energy Secretary Rick Perry, citing documents that appear to show that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) paid more than $ 24 million to the partnership of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for costs from a series of whistleblower cases.»

In the Maryland suburbs of Washington DC, I buy 100 % wind - generated electricity through PEPCO Energy Services, and it is only slightly more expensive than PEPCO's «standard service» which is about 57 % coal, 35 % nuclear, 5 % natural gas, and 1 % oil.

Finishing the reactors would be more expensive than building new gas - fired power plants, but averaged over the 60 - year service life, the costs will be right in line with renewables, about $ 60 to $ 80 per MWh — except nuclear produces reliably, where wind energy is fundamentally unreliable and chaotic.

An electricity grid powered b y mostly nuclear power (like France) with some pumped hydro and some gas for peaking, abates more CO2 than a mostly renewable energy powered grid, and does so ant about 1/3 the abatement cost.

Wind with pumped hydro energy storage is about 30 times more costly than nuclear to provide reliable dispatchable power.

Meanwhile, Trump has also talked about zeroing out all federal research and development for clean energy, which would include work the Department of Energy is doing on solar, wind, nuclear power, efficiency, electric cars, batteries, and more, including the cutting - edge research being done at ARPenergy, which would include work the Department of Energy is doing on solar, wind, nuclear power, efficiency, electric cars, batteries, and more, including the cutting - edge research being done at ARPEnergy is doing on solar, wind, nuclear power, efficiency, electric cars, batteries, and more, including the cutting - edge research being done at ARPA - E.

If the mix of energy technologies cheap, powerful and acceptable enough to bring this shift about includes one or more of solar, nuclear fusion or nuclear fission (and who, seriously, thinks it won't?)

A pre-Fukushima scenario from the International Energy Agency that allowed for a little more action on carbon dioxide than has yet been taken predicted a rise of about 70 % in nuclear capacity between 2010 and 2035; since other generating capacity will be growing too, that would keep nuclear's 13 % share roughly constant.

These ads reflect people's anxiety about the safety of nuclear reactors and the disapproval they feel about having their hard - earned money spent on something they clearly think is a bad idea, especially when safer, more affordable, less risky energy choices exist such as efficiency, wind, solar, and bioenergy.

According to the Energy Information Administration, half of our countries» electricity is generated by coal, about 20 % by nuclear, and a little more than 18 % by natural gas.

«Coal with carbon sequestration emits 60 - to 110 - times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy, and nuclear emits about 25 - times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy,» Jacobson said.