Sentences with phrase «reduce nuclear costs»

Not exact matches

WBFO's Chris Caya reports on the state's plan to cover the cost of reducing carbon emissions and help the nuclear industry.

At a time when there are signs that the new government in Iran is taking some tentative steps towards reducing tensions over its nuclear programme, the cost of military intervention seem to outweigh any potential benefits (of which there are few and far between at best).

But shrinking the company's nuclear fleet means that overhead costs are spread across fewer facilities, reducing profits.

The government policy is also due, in part, to the emergence of new nuclear energy technologies that, if successfully developed and implemented, could increase nuclear plant safety while also reducing costs and the risk of nuclear proliferation.

LONDON (Reuters)- Europe's ageing nuclear fleet will undergo more prolonged outages over the next few years, reducing the reliability of power supply and costing plant operators many millions of dollars.

Europe's ageing nuclear fleet will undergo more prolonged outages over the next few years, reducing the reliability of power supply and costing plant operators many millions of dollars

The process, using room temperature mechanical ball milling, provides a lower cost method to produce these alkali metals which are widely used in industrial processes as reducing and drying agents, precursors in synthesis of complex metal hydrides, hydrogen storage materials, and in nuclear engineering.

Adds Thomas: «It seems to me highly unlikely that [investing in nuclear power] is the most cost - effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Researchers from NIST and three other institutions developed the new chip, which might be used to reduce the size and cost of some instruments that, like MRI, rely on nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR).

It is hoped that this combined approach would reduce both the cost of nuclear waste disposal and the amount of byproducts produced during the process.

According to Global Nuclear Fuels, the GNF2 design delivers higher energy output whilst cutting overall fuel cycle costs, reducing the total amount of uranium and the average enrichment in fuel reloads.

It should be possible to reduce the cost of nuclear power via modular standard reactor design, but governments need to provide a regulatory environment that supports timely construction of approved designs.

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.

And again, my position is that (1) nuclear power is not needed, since we can get all the electricity we need, and more, from renewables; (2) nuclear can not possibly be expanded enough, quickly enough to have any significant impact on reducing GHG emissions in the time frame that's needed, while renewables can be (and already are); and (3) resources invested in expanding nuclear power would be far more effectively invested in renewables and / or efficiency, and the opportunity costs of nuclear therefore mean that putting resources into nuclear power hinders rather than helps the effort to quickly reduce CO2 emissions from generating electricity.

Essentially we are reducing CO2 to hydrocarbon so we can oxidize it back to CO2, paying the second law cost by using nuclear power.

Nuclear power can be taken off the table because, completely independent of the dangers and risks that it presents, it is not an effective way — and certainly not a cost - effective way — to reduce GHG emissions as much and as rapidly as they need to be reduced.

The Council of the American Physical Society believes that the use of renewable energy sources, the adoption of new ways of producing and using fossil fuels, increased consideration of safe and cost effective uses of nuclear power, and the introduction of energy - efficient technologies can, over time, promote the United States» energy security and reduce stress on the world's environment.

Placing so much emphasis solely on carbon footprints gives traction to foolhardy ideas such as carbon capture, iron seeding of the ocean and the expansion of nuclear power, which have no precedent in geologic history and seek to reduce net carbon emissions at the cost of much greater environmental damage.

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.

That is what those arguing against allowing nuclear cost to be reduced are arguing for.

This clearly shows that renewables can not provide reliable power and are a higher cost option than nuclear to significantly reduce GHG emissions:.

Listing «7 areas» is irrelevant given that you haven't shown that your «areas» will reduce global emissions faster and at less cost than with mostly nuclear.

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.

Already by the early 1970s, U.S. nuclear plant operators were seeking to standardize nuclear plant design to reduce the time and cost of licensing and construction.

«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.

Here is my attempt to present the argument for reducing the regulation of nuclear so it can become cost competitive with fossil fuels — especially in the developing countries (which is where the emissions growth will occur over this century if there is not realistic alternative to fossil fuels):

Once the IAEA starts increasing the allowable radiation limits for the public this should be the trigger to start the process that leads to reducing the cost of nuclear energy; and the catalyst to keep reducing costs over the long term as the radiation limits are reviewed and increased periodically.

thus reducing the financing costs for all of the plants life 4) Increasing support allows the NRC licensing process to be completely revamped and the culture of the organisation changed from «safety first» to a balance of all costs and risks, > including the costs and risks of nuclear being delayed and too expensive to compete as well as it could if the costs were lower.

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).

Nuclear energy is effectively unlimited and the potential to reduce real costs over time is enormous.

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 high energy density of nuclear fuel provides the opportunity to substantially reduce the cost of electricity.

Nuclear power would provide many other benefits as well: energy security, reliable energy supply, reduce shipping costs and energy used in shipping coal by a factor of 20,000 to 2 million, provide fresh water, no need for carbon pricing, avoid 1 million fatalities per year by 2050,... https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/17/learning-from-the-octopus/#comment-231867.

Therefore, it really is up to the Greenies, Progressives, and Warmists to change tack, be objective, learn the facts about nuclear and become enthusiastic advocates of a genuine, low cost way to reduce global CO2 emissions.

You mention that replacing new coal - fired electrical generation capacity with nuclear fission is a no - cost approach to reducing CO2 emissions.

If you want the most cost effective way of reducing them in the west, a 100 % nuclear powered society is way the best and cheapest option.

For example, if a massive global nuclear expansion was one way of savagely reducing the amount of coal and natural gas burned in power stations (which it is) and the cost disadvantage of nuclear wasn't completely silly (which it isn't) then that could work.

Reduce dependency on (imported) fossil fuels (balance of payments, reliance on potentially unfriendly or unstable nations as suppliers, high cost at the pump, all problems as seen from US viewpoint): — encourage nuclear power generation (cut red tape)-- encourage energy savings and improved efficiency projects (tax breaks)-- encourage basic research into new (non fossil fuel) resources (subsidies)-- encourage imports from friendly neighbor, Canada (Keystone pipeline)-- encourage local oil and gas exploration («drill, baby, drill»)-- encourage «clean coal» projects (tax incentives)-- set goal to become energy independent within ten years

The report concludes with a dozen recommendations for policymakers, including reducing subsidies to existing reactors, adopting market - oriented approaches to uranium mining royalties and waste management financing, and incorporating the costs of preventing nuclear proliferation and terrorism into economic assessments of new reactors.

The United States should continue research and development on nuclear power technologies that do not entail reprocessing, with a focus on enhancing safety, security, and waste disposal, and reducing water use and cost.

Model finds operating nuclear plants flexibly can reduce electricity costs, increase revenue for nuclear plants, and cut carbon emissions in electric power systems.

You might be interested in my final comment where I brough this back to th relevance to how nuclear power cost could be reduced by appropriate deregulation.

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.

You can only believe there is a looming catastrophe if a) you believe that man is responsible for 100 % of the CO2 increase (that is in serious doubt), b) an increase of up to 2.0 °C is not beneficial (there is much evidence that it is beneficial), c) over the next 100 years there will not be any major advances in energy production (now we can switch to nuclear within 10 - 20 years), and d) man can realistically do anything to effect global temperatures (the US EPA estimates proposed CO2 restrictions costing tens of trillions of US dollars would reduce global temperature by 0.006 °C).

«While 62 % recognised cost advantages in using nuclear energy, only 42 % believed that they reduced CO2 emissions.»

A 100 % renewable energy transition globally by 2050 is both technological possible and will reduce the average cost of energy by 30 % from current fossil fuel and nuclear power prices according to a comprehensive 2017 study of the European Energy Watch Group led by physicist and German PV pioneer Hans - Josef Fell and performed by Berlin's Lappeenranta University of Technology.

It should be possible to reduce the cost of nuclear power via modular standard reactor design, but governments need to provide a regulatory environment that supports timely construction of approved designs.

An energy policy that includes R&D to reduce the cost of nuclear would also be a good thing.

Solar can't produce electricity at night, but as we've seen in Germany and Australia it doesn't take a lot of solar capacity to start pushing down electricty prices during the day and that is very bad for the economics of nuclear power as it's a high capital cost, low fuel cost source of energy and reducing output during periods of low demand doesn't do much to reduce costs.