Sentences with phrase «new nuclear»

Those groups have attacked the proposed rule, tried to block new nuclear plants in Georgia and South Carolina, and are all on the record supporting the replacement of zero - emissions nuclear plants with natural gas in Ohio, California and New York.

1) Language regarding the definition of «new nuclear generating capacity» from the proposed rule, 22 and

EIA's assumption regarding the treatment of new nuclear units beyond those already under construction in the Base Policy case (CPP) is consistent with its reading of:

The news comes the same day that Secretary Perry announced conditional commitments for $ 3.7 billion in federal loan guarantees to continue construction of a new nuclear plant in Georgia.

New nukes in the US The Tennessee Valley Authority announced today that it will seek licenses for two new nuclear plants

Right now, our global competitors are growing their clean energy sectors in order to dominate a market that some expect to expand by $ 2 trillion over the next decade.16 As we describe in our report, Creating a Clean Energy Century, 17 China is committed to investing over $ 700 billion in clean energy over the coming decade, 18 in addition to building 245 new nuclear plants19 and putting a price on carbon.

Nuclear capacity is also added in a sensitivity case in which new nuclear generation receives the same treatment as new renewable generation in compliance calculations (CPPNUC).

However, EIA also considered an alternative case (CPPNUC) that accorded all new nuclear power the same treatment as new eligible renewables in the compliance calculation.

Are 100 New Nuclear Plants the Answer?

Remember, President Obama tried not once but twice with Congress, to build ~ 13 new nuclear power plants.

The figure beats the 16 cents for new nuclear power plants and is closing in on Europe's 9 cent price tag for new coal plants, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

The «new nuclear paradigm» needed is to deregulate the nuclear industry.

«We develop new technologies and reduce the costs of renewables, new nuclear, environmental protection in natural gas production, carbon capture and sequestration, really across the board,» Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said in a May teleconference, describing his agency's actions on climate change.

But he wrongly suggest LFTR is «a new nuclear paradigm».

«Of course, not only does China want to replace its old coal fleet with new nuclear reactors, it wants to become the leading exporter of nuclear technology as well, including heavy components in the supply chain where the real global bottleneck is.»

Since Energy Probe adopted its anti-nuclear position in the 1970s, hundreds of nuclear plants that were on Canada's drawing boards have been cancelled and no new nuclear plants have been completed.

Second, the scenario assumes no deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technology and a phase out of nuclear power by 204... with no new nuclear plants built after 2008.

So, the nuclear solution is two decades away, and then they will risk being more expensive than alternative which will reduce costs in the four decades between now and when new nuclear power plants will still have two decades of debt service on labor costs for building nuclear two to three decades earlier.

Korea is winning the global competition to build new nuclear plants against China and Russia despite being a fraction of the size, at just 50 million people, and energy - poor.

As P.A says «That is why the US needs a new nuclear paradigm».

The collapse of Toshiba will result in the halting of all new nuclear power plant construction by its US - based subsidiary, Westinghouse.

I say that because in today's regulatory, economic, and social situation it takes a very brave and strong corporation to take on the job of building a new nuclear power plant.

However, it has been recently publicised that the UK nuclear industry is better equipped to manage the decline and decommissioning of existing nuclear plants, rather than set up new nuclear power stations.

It is true that the costs associated with building new nuclear plants could be reduced significantly with regulatory streamlining, that alone is not enough to counter cheap gas.

We'd better begin a public debate about whether it is feasible or desirable to construct any new nuclear power plants.

My friend and sometime reporting partner Matt Wald has an important new story in our ongoing Energy Challenge series on what appears to be a shift from rhetoric about building new nuclear power plants to concrete action — if not yet the pouring of concrete.

And, despite having more than 30 new nuclear reactors under construction, China's new nuclear capability was still a fraction of new coal energy.

An equally expensive and widely unpopular alternative is construction of many new nuclear fission plants for generation of electricity or production of secondary fuels.

I'll be surprised when the next new nuclear plant is constructed in the US without major subsidies.

First of all, I spent much of the 1980s testifying at state public utility commissions against new nuclear power plants on economic grounds only.

Couldn't a developed country contribute equally to the amelioration of warming by, say, building 40 new nuclear power plants?

IGCC with carbon capture and storage and new nuclear plants can probably be brought on line in the next ten years or so to the extent they are needed to augment the efficiency and renewables deployment.

Even after the amount of energy efficiency that we're talking about, California would still need to build [the equivalent of *] one and a half to two new nuclear plants every year through 2050.

Concerns about rising fossil fuel prices, energy security, and greenhouse gas emissions support the development of new nuclear generating capacity.

There is a whole section dedicated to «dirty, dangerous nuclear power», and the scenario includes a complete phase - out of new nuclear globally, with no stations built after 2008.

The last time I looked (early»80s) he wanted a crash reindustrialization program funded by the federal government and building 1,500 new nuclear power plants.

However, projected costs for new nuclear reactors have historically been underestimated and construction costs of all new energy facilities have recently risen.

That's because when you really look at it, you will see that even a massive global effort to build thousands of new nuclear power plants would have only a modest impact on GHG emissions and even that impact won't occur for decades.

By the time that new nuclear power plants can even begin to generate any «carbon free» electricity, we can build and deploy hundreds of gigawatts of wind and solar generating capacity — and that's with today's mainstream, already commercialized technology, let alone the innovations like thin - film solar that are just beginning to enter the market.

So, new nuclear power plants being proposed today are extremely unlikely to even begin producing any «carbon free» electricity for at least ten years, and probably closer to 20 years.

Resources spent building new nuclear power plants means resources diverted from other efforts — conservation, efficiency, wind, PV, biofuels, geothermal, mass transit, less car - oriented communities — that would produce more results faster.

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

DOE also claims 6 years lead time for nuclear; at a round table discussion with utility CEOs (from a business site I didn't bookmark and cant find), one of them said jestingly that a new nuclear plant takes 15 years — 5 for design & permitting, 5 for litigation, and 5 for construction.

Example: I was a business meeting in St. Galen where Economie Swiss (lobbyist) was showing how they were able to improve their messaging for building new nuclear plants in Switzerland.

China is also the most likely place [where] new nuclear designs which can eliminate many of the problems of today's nuclear plants will get tried.

On the downside, it notes that new nuclear build faces is not without challenges on the environmental, economic and planning fronts.

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 wonder if anyone would like to comment on the irrationality of Obama's point on holding off on new nuclear plants «until the problems of storage are sorted out».

Paz, who is secretly a double - agent, tries to steal your new nuclear weapon (ain't that a $ # @ ^?)

We're introducing a new Nuclear Throne shirt designed by Justin Chan at the show.