On Sunday, the Lib Dem delegates flouted party history and voted in favour of building
more nuclear power stations — energy secretary Ed Davey having told them this is vital to fight climate change — and also voted to support fracking, albeit with an amendment to ensure pollution levels were closely monitored and those local to fracking sites were properly consulted.
The new energy minister has today reiterated his support for building
more nuclear power stations, but insisted it would not be done with taxpayers» money.
Not exact matches
Ontario has already wasted billions on natural gas - fired
power plants that were never built and could potentially squander billions
more refurbishing aging
nuclear stations in a bid to prop up the province's atomic industry.
Governments realise that the only practicable way to provide this is by
nuclear power, and so many
more power stations are being planned, using new designs that are even safer and
more economical than those presently in operation [2].
Lib Dems permitted to retain objections to
nuclear power while allowing national planning statement which authorises the building of
more power stations.
I'm all for
more infrastructure spending on road and rail (though very sceptical indeed about HS2),
nuclear power stations, and airports - though the big decision on the latter has been postponed until after 2015.
The deal to provide a new
nuclear power station at Hinkley Point would have cost even
more if George Osborne had had his way, the former energy secretary Ed Davey has said.
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.
Elevated radiation levels have been detected at and around the stricken
nuclear power station in Japan, but the Chernobyl accident remains far
more catastrophic
More than three years earlier, after an earthquake and tsunamis battered Japan's eastern coast, the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Station blew, blasting radiation into the sea and sky.
Butterfly larvae fed even slightly tainted leaves collected near the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Station were
more likely to suffer physical abnormalities and low survival rates than those fed uncontaminated foliage, a new study finds.
This meant that
nuclear power station could be
more likely to be located on the coast in the future.
Re # 33 While using
nuclear explosions to solve the problem of AGW is almost certainly less political acceptable than the alternative of building thousands of
nuclear power stations, it could produce a solution that would be
more effective if the situation becomes urgent.
More CO2 in the atmosphere would seem to be beneficial, so maybe more coal fired power stations are in order at present, backed up by nucl
More CO2 in the atmosphere would seem to be beneficial, so maybe
more coal fired power stations are in order at present, backed up by nucl
more coal fired
power stations are in order at present, backed up by
nuclear.
Meanwhile, Germany, once Europe's climate tub - thumpers - in - chief, is in a messy transition on climate policy as it burns ever
more coal, while shutting down its fleet of low - carbon
nuclear power stations.
The government plans to re-commission several retired coal
power stations, and build
more in the coming decade, with the remaining increase in capacity expected to come from new
nuclear power plants.
If you don't like trading electricity, go and build your fancy
nuclear power stations, but then don't complain about wholesale prices of 15ct / kWh and
more.
More significant perhaps is the legacy of
nuclear power for future generations, particularly if the worst case scenarios of anthropogenic climate change play out, where society will be vulnerable and incohesive and possibly less able to cope with the technical challenge of maintaining or decomissioning elderly
nuclear power stations or dealing with the build up of waste.
The Palo Verde
Nuclear Power Station near Phoenix generates nearly 900 times
more electricity than Nevada's Nellis Air Force Base photovoltaic panels, on less land, for 1/15 the cost per kWh — and does it 90 % of the time, versus 30 % of the time for the Nellis array.
In 2011, it began to burn
more after shutting eight of its
nuclear power stations following the Fukushima disaster in Japan.
The research concludes  that taken together, fossil - fueled facilities are about 17 times
more dangerous per gigawatt hour of electricity produced to birds than wind and
nuclear power stations.
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.
A
more pragmatic issue is whether German industry would be financially strong enough to build
nuclear power stations in the UK, given that they would have
more than enough to sort out at home, as a result of the phase out decision.
Comparing energy sources Set up costs Renewable need bigger
power stations for the same output compared to non-renewable... costs
more Hydroelectric &
nuclear have huge engineering costs for safety.
The cross-party group of MPs said it shared the
nuclear industry's concern that it would take
more than two years to hammer out a new deal for regulating
nuclear power stations and trade.
We already have a good way of massively reducing our CO2 emissions (far
more than even banning aviation altogether would achieve)-- namely replacing coal - and gas - fired
power stations with
nuclear ones.
Is a fossil - fuelled or
nuclear power station more aesthetically pleasing than a row of wind turbines?
One coal
power station is around a billion dollars, and a
nuclear a lot
more.
This alone would free up
more energy consumption than 18 one gigawatt
nuclear power stations or their coal
powered equivalent.
Standardized, replicable
nuclear power stations seem a
more plausible bet than «clean coal».
Just down the road from us is Didcot A
power station, a large coal - burning plant with poor pollution control and therefore with substantial effects on local air quality, as well as
more substantial emissions of radiation than from any UK
nuclear power station and a Co2 output of about 8 million tonnes a year.
Living near a coal - fired
power station would give you 100 to 300 times
more radiation exposure than living next to a
nuclear power plant, and even that is trivial and not the reason coal burning is damaging to your health.
Ajo Indian Hospital New Corneilia Copper Company Phelps Dodge Copper Mine Phelps - Dodge Corporation Chandler General Electric — Turbine South Western Nitrochemical Company Southwestern Agrichemical Company Spreckels Sugar Company Spreckles Sugar Plant Williams Air Force Base Clarkdale Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Plant Phoenix Cement Company United Verde Copper Company United Verde Extension Mining Company Clifton Arizona Copper Company Ltd Phelps Dodge Aluminum Phelps Dodge Copper Products Phelps Dodge Corporation Shannon Copper Company Cochise Apache Generating
Station Apache
Station Arizona Electric
Power Cooperative Cochise Powerhouse / Arizona Electric
Power Co-Op General Electric Douglas Calumet and Arizona Mining Company Copper Queen Consolidated Mining Company Douglas Improvement Company Phelps Dodge... Read
More»
With bitcoin whose blockchain has grown so large that takes days to download it and whose transaction fees have grown so large that merchants are beginning to abandon it, a personal
nuclear power station would be
more appropriate considering the computational
power now required to mine them.