Sentences with phrase «nuclear electricity technologies»

Not exact matches

The government has shown its commitment to replacing our ageing energy infrastructure, and the Electricity Market Reform (EMR) proposals are intended to provide the economic and commercial underpinning to investments in a range of low - carbon technologies, including nuclear.

With what EPRI calls a «full» portfolio of technology options, including new nuclear, expanded wind power and carbon capture, the price of electricity in current dollars would climb by 80 percent in 2050.

$ 150 billion over ten years, including workforce training, plug - in hybrids, renewable electricity, advanced biofuels, advanced coal technology, nuclear power, and smart grid

Earlier today, The Hill newspaper reported that the plan «would roll back funding for nuclear physics and advanced scientific computing research to 2008 levels, eliminate the Office of Electricity, eliminate the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and scrap the Office of Fossil Energy, which focuses on technologies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.»

As President Obama's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future continues to ponder what role nuclear power might play in the U.S. electricity supply, a group of scientists, engineers and other experts assembled by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) released a report on the nuclear fuel cycle paid for by the nuclear inNuclear Future continues to ponder what role nuclear power might play in the U.S. electricity supply, a group of scientists, engineers and other experts assembled by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) released a report on the nuclear fuel cycle paid for by the nuclear innuclear power might play in the U.S. electricity supply, a group of scientists, engineers and other experts assembled by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) released a report on the nuclear fuel cycle paid for by the nuclear innuclear fuel cycle paid for by the nuclear innuclear industry.

«With a design that can extract energy from used nuclear fuel to generate electricity, our Prism advanced reactor technology is a game - changer,» he said.

The United States has many promising options for obtaining new supplies of electricity and changing its supply mix during the next two to three decades, especially if carbon capture and storage and evolutionary nuclear technologies can be deployed at required scales.

This validation brings us another step closer to achieving our mission of delivering scalable advanced nuclear technology to produce the electricity, process heat and clean water needed to improve the quality of life for people around the world.»

Substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector are achievable over the next two to three decades through a portfolio approach involving the widespread deployment of energy efficiency technologies; renewable energy; coal, natural gas, and biomass with carbon capture and storage; and nuclear technologies.

«For more than 50 years GE has been at the forefront of energy innovation and nuclear technology and GE Hitachi's PRISM reactor offers an attractive solution to tackling the UK's plutonium management challenges while generating clean electricity,» said Mark Elborne, President and CEO of GE UK & Ireland.

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.

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.

Although you state you support nuclear, you seem to have a much better understanding of the anti-nuclear talking points than of the facts about nuclear — such as safety and costs (compared with other electricity generating technologies).

So nuclear generation is not as safe and it is more expensive than it would have been if it had been allowed to compete and develop on an equal footing with other electricity generation technologies.

Nuclear is about the safest electricity generation technology.

Nuclear is still a factor of 600 safer than the main alternative, coal, and still much safer than all other electricity generation technologies (on a fully life cycle basis).

However, you don't want to argue for a rational solution — i.e. cheap nuclear power (which also happens to be 10 to 100 times safer than our currently accepted main source of electricity generation, fossil fuel) and also happens to be a near zero emission technology (in fact much lower than renewables given they need fossil fuel backup, and given solar needs about 10 times as much material per TWh on an LCA basis).

Worthy research objectives include improved fuel cells, solar power, light - emitting diodes for lighting, intelligent buildings, carbon sequestration, advanced nuclear power, superconducting transmission lines, cellulosic biofuels, geothermal power, batteries and other energy storage technologies, super-efficient vehicles, and smart electricity grids.

Perry's confirmation comes amid reports of draconian cuts to the department's budget, including rolling back funding for nuclear physics and advanced scientific computing research to 2008 levels, eliminate the Office of Electricity, eliminate the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and scrap the Office of Fossil Energy, which focuses on technologies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

And nuclear is a proven technology, already providing 11 percent of electricity globally.

• Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (2006) • Energy Sector Methane Recovery and Use Initiative (2007) • IEA Energy Technology Essentials: Biofuel Production, Biomass Power for Power Generation and CHP, CO2 Capture and Storage, Fuel Cells, Hydrogen Production and Distribution, Nuclear Power (2007 & 2006) • International CHP / DHC Collaborative (2007) • International Energy Technology Co-operation — Frequently Asked Questions (Chinese, Russian)(2006/7) • Renewables in Global Energy Supply (2007) • Energy Technology Perspectives Fact Sheets: Buildings and Appliances; Electricity Generation; Industry; Road Transport Technologies and Fuels; and Scenario Analysis (2006)

Today, most alternative energy technologies that are discussed — wind, solar, tides, waves, clean coal, nuclear fission and, perhaps one day, fusion — are useful only for making electricity.

The claim to a bright future which the nuclear industry clung to for the last 20 years was that the technology produced large quantities of low carbon electricity at a low price — something that intermittent renewables could not do.

The electricity sector has a range of low - and zero - carbon technologies that could contribute to this carbon budget including energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear power, and coal or natural gas plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Renewable technologies already exist (not hypothetically) that can produce electricity at rates that are competitive with the subsidized rates we pay for nuclear and fossil fuel generated electricity.

2.1 Nuclear cheaper and lower emissions than renewables Renewables v Nuclear: Electricity Bills and Emissions reductions by technology proportions to 2050

Lastly, nuclear is safer than any other electricity generation technology, including wind and solar: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html

[9] Nuclear power is about the safest of all electricity generation technologies — nuclear would avoid 1 million fatalities per year by 2050 compared with coal: https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/17/learning-from-the-octopus/#commentNuclear power is about the safest of all electricity generation technologies — nuclear would avoid 1 million fatalities per year by 2050 compared with coal: https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/17/learning-from-the-octopus/#commentnuclear would avoid 1 million fatalities per year by 2050 compared with coal: https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/17/learning-from-the-octopus/#comment-231867

Nuclear is about the safest of all electricity generation technologies: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html

It makes sense to use nuclear energy in combination with renewable technologies to create a sustainable, clean energy portfolio to meet rising electricity demand while reducing carbon emissions.

Converting light into electricity with no moving parts is a profoundly different enterprise than turning a turbine to make power — the technology that is at work in coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydropower plants and, most visibly to the public, at wind farms.

The IEA, in close collaboration with the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, works with countries around the world to analyse the cost of nuclear technologies, the place of nuclear power in competitive electricity markets, and its role in meeting long - term power sector decarbonisation objeNuclear Energy Agency, works with countries around the world to analyse the cost of nuclear technologies, the place of nuclear power in competitive electricity markets, and its role in meeting long - term power sector decarbonisation objenuclear technologies, the place of nuclear power in competitive electricity markets, and its role in meeting long - term power sector decarbonisation objenuclear power in competitive electricity markets, and its role in meeting long - term power sector decarbonisation objectives.

However, low natural gas prices, increasingly affordable renewable technologies and grid improvements, declining demand for electricity, and costly age - and safety - related power plant repairs have led to some nuclear reactors being retiring abruptly, with little or no advance planning.

Nuclear is far safer than the technologies that most of the electricity comes from.

Offshore wind is still one of the more expensive electricity generating technologies, but onshore wind is often highly competitive with coal, natural gas, and nuclear power in areas with strong wind resources.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision, following Fukushima, to abandon nuclear development was possible because early offshore wind projects developed under a stable, long - term federal feed - in tariff program proved the engineering practicality, and because Germany's comprehensive RAVE research program proved both the North Sea's resource potential and the wind industry's technology are ready to join other renewables in meeting German electricity demand.

The scenario combines the following elements: efficient electricity end - use; hydroelectric power; nuclear power; efficient gas turbine technologies fired with natural gas; use of coal - derived hydrogen in fuel cells; and biomass - integrated gasifier / gas turbine technologies.

Using a «high - resolution electricity system planning model» of the DOE's two - year - old SunShot Initiative (meant to knock down the cost of solar electricity to market prices by 2020) alongside likely carbon - limitation policies, Kammen and company found that it's not unrealistic for solar to capture a third of the Western U.S. electricity market within 40 years, displacing currently more - attractive technologies like nuclear and natural gas.

While total output from low carbon technologies, such as hydro, wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and nuclear power, has continued to grow, their share of global primary energy supply has remained relatively constant; fossil fuels have maintained their dominance and carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) has yet to be applied to electricity production at scale.

A mix of electricity generating technologies with a large component of nuclear power is the least cost way to supply low emissions electricity to reliably meet the demand for Australia's National Electricelectricity generating technologies with a large component of nuclear power is the least cost way to supply low emissions electricity to reliably meet the demand for Australia's National Electricelectricity to reliably meet the demand for Australia's National ElectricityElectricity Market.

Solar and wind each provide 20 % of total electricity supply; nuclear capacity is tripled, and the technology for coal plant carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is assumed to be available without constraint.

*** The most astonishing thing about Alan Finkel's report on Australia's electricity market calamity, is that the only stand - alone, CO2 emissions free generation source — nuclear power — barely rates a mention and gets dismissed as if it were some far fetched technology used by aliens.

You didn't apply that approach before poo - poo - ing nuclear power which is the safest electricity generation technology, and by far the least cost way to reduce global GHG emissions by the amount being advocated by the CAGW crowd.

Two huge «wind farms» recently announced in Texas demonstrate clearly that wind energy is a niche technology that will do little to offset the need for the people of the US to depend on coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear energy and hydropower for their electricity for years to come.

In calculations for Slate, Michael Shellenberger, one of the founders of the «ecomodernist» philosophy that advocates for a technology - focused approach to tackling climate change that includes support for nuclear power, figured out that «under Sanders» proposal to not re-license nuclear plants, U.S. carbon emissions would increase by a minimum of 2 billion tons, about the same amount as the U.S. produces each year making electricity.»

The preceding analysis of the two huge «wind farms» recently announced in Texas demonstrate clearly that wind energy is a niche technology that will do little to offset the need for the people of the United States to depend on coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear energy and hydropower for their electricity for years to come.

Scaling that up, US nuclear customers are paying a technology specific levy for low emission electricity that is 2 % of what Germans are paying.

It is not very honest to compare cost of new nuclear to current wholesale price of electricity without also comparing that of other technologies for new build.

quokka: @Pete Moran US nuclear customers are paying a technology specific levy for low emission electricity that is 2 % of what Germans are paying.

A 2009 study on the negative effects of power generation by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE), «The hidden costs of electricity: externalities of power generation in Australia» calculated the greenhouse impacts and health damage costs of different power generation technologies including coal, gas, wind, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, geothermal, carbon capture and storage, and nuclear energy, and determined that health costs of burning coal are equivalent to a national health burden of around $ A2.6 billion per annum.