Sentences with phrase «with nuclear costs»

Not exact matches

NEW YORK, April 1 - FirstEnergy Corp said late on Saturday its nuclear and coal power plant units filed for bankruptcy court protection as the company looks to restructure, sell assets and win government support to cope with competitors using lower - cost natural gas.

I recently spoke with an M.I.T. nuclear physicist, Andrew Kadak, who said the engineering challenges were so great and the costs so high that it would be more practical to pursue conventional power sources.

Those plants are aging, and if we replace them with new nuclear plants they would struggle to compete against the shrinking costs of wind and solar.

Southern has struggled over the past few years with cost over runs from the construction of two new nuclear power plants (Vogle and Kemper).

The Ontario Energy Board ordered the Ontario Power Generation to cut the «excessive» costs associated with pensions and benefits from its nuclear business» administration, operations and maintenance budget.

In order to understand the rationality of nation states and to ultimately deal with the problem of nuclear proliferation, we need to understand rationality beyond a cost - benefit calculation and combine it with a cultural approach that emphasises established and familiar patterns of behaviour.

«There will be relatively high costs in developing this new nuclear facility but broadly comparable with other low carbon technologies such as offshore wind, and, potentially, carbon capture and storage applied to gas and coal fired power stations.

Labour supports a renewal of Britain's nuclear capacity but is open to discussion on «military capability requirements and cost», suggesting there is room for discussion with Liberal Democrats in the event of another hung parliament.

It has been claimed that «A country with nuclear weapons can not be defeated [at an acceptable cost], but it can be destroyed.»

«That the Parliament looks critically at the results of a new poll on support for nuclear weapons in Scotland commissioned by Lord Ashcroft; believes that the result stating that 51 % of Scots want the Trident nuclear deterrent to be replaced is misguidedly being used to suggest that a majority of Scots support keeping nuclear weapons in Scotland; understands that the results of this poll were intended to challenge the findings of a recent poll commissioned by the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament that showed a decisive 75 % majority of the Scottish public is against both the cost and the reasoning behind the UK Government's intention to keep all of its nuclear weapons stationed in Scotland; understands that, while Lord Ashcroft conducted the poll to supposedly show that «more than half of Scots are in favour of nuclear weapons», the poll showed that only 37 % of Scots believe so in principle, compared with 48 % who do not; questions the integrity of a poll that, it understands, was privately paid for by a wealthy Tory backer; considers that Lord Ashcroft is spinning the results, and believes that he should stop doing so and accept what it considers the fact proven time and again that Scots want rid of nuclear weapons.nuclear weapons in Scotland commissioned by Lord Ashcroft; believes that the result stating that 51 % of Scots want the Trident nuclear deterrent to be replaced is misguidedly being used to suggest that a majority of Scots support keeping nuclear weapons in Scotland; understands that the results of this poll were intended to challenge the findings of a recent poll commissioned by the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament that showed a decisive 75 % majority of the Scottish public is against both the cost and the reasoning behind the UK Government's intention to keep all of its nuclear weapons stationed in Scotland; understands that, while Lord Ashcroft conducted the poll to supposedly show that «more than half of Scots are in favour of nuclear weapons», the poll showed that only 37 % of Scots believe so in principle, compared with 48 % who do not; questions the integrity of a poll that, it understands, was privately paid for by a wealthy Tory backer; considers that Lord Ashcroft is spinning the results, and believes that he should stop doing so and accept what it considers the fact proven time and again that Scots want rid of nuclear weapons.nuclear deterrent to be replaced is misguidedly being used to suggest that a majority of Scots support keeping nuclear weapons in Scotland; understands that the results of this poll were intended to challenge the findings of a recent poll commissioned by the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament that showed a decisive 75 % majority of the Scottish public is against both the cost and the reasoning behind the UK Government's intention to keep all of its nuclear weapons stationed in Scotland; understands that, while Lord Ashcroft conducted the poll to supposedly show that «more than half of Scots are in favour of nuclear weapons», the poll showed that only 37 % of Scots believe so in principle, compared with 48 % who do not; questions the integrity of a poll that, it understands, was privately paid for by a wealthy Tory backer; considers that Lord Ashcroft is spinning the results, and believes that he should stop doing so and accept what it considers the fact proven time and again that Scots want rid of nuclear weapons.nuclear weapons in Scotland; understands that the results of this poll were intended to challenge the findings of a recent poll commissioned by the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament that showed a decisive 75 % majority of the Scottish public is against both the cost and the reasoning behind the UK Government's intention to keep all of its nuclear weapons stationed in Scotland; understands that, while Lord Ashcroft conducted the poll to supposedly show that «more than half of Scots are in favour of nuclear weapons», the poll showed that only 37 % of Scots believe so in principle, compared with 48 % who do not; questions the integrity of a poll that, it understands, was privately paid for by a wealthy Tory backer; considers that Lord Ashcroft is spinning the results, and believes that he should stop doing so and accept what it considers the fact proven time and again that Scots want rid of nuclear weapons.Nuclear Disarmament that showed a decisive 75 % majority of the Scottish public is against both the cost and the reasoning behind the UK Government's intention to keep all of its nuclear weapons stationed in Scotland; understands that, while Lord Ashcroft conducted the poll to supposedly show that «more than half of Scots are in favour of nuclear weapons», the poll showed that only 37 % of Scots believe so in principle, compared with 48 % who do not; questions the integrity of a poll that, it understands, was privately paid for by a wealthy Tory backer; considers that Lord Ashcroft is spinning the results, and believes that he should stop doing so and accept what it considers the fact proven time and again that Scots want rid of nuclear weapons.nuclear weapons stationed in Scotland; understands that, while Lord Ashcroft conducted the poll to supposedly show that «more than half of Scots are in favour of nuclear weapons», the poll showed that only 37 % of Scots believe so in principle, compared with 48 % who do not; questions the integrity of a poll that, it understands, was privately paid for by a wealthy Tory backer; considers that Lord Ashcroft is spinning the results, and believes that he should stop doing so and accept what it considers the fact proven time and again that Scots want rid of nuclear weapons.nuclear weapons», the poll showed that only 37 % of Scots believe so in principle, compared with 48 % who do not; questions the integrity of a poll that, it understands, was privately paid for by a wealthy Tory backer; considers that Lord Ashcroft is spinning the results, and believes that he should stop doing so and accept what it considers the fact proven time and again that Scots want rid of nuclear weapons.nuclear weapons.»

The Cuomo administration estimates the Clean Energy Standard, chiefly its nuclear subsidies, will add an average of $ 2 to residential electric bills, although the Empire Center calculated the standard would hike the average residential bill by more than $ 2.09 in 2018 and by $ 3.40 in 2021 from added supply costs alone; compliance with the standard will necessitate major changes to the electrical grid, which will separately drive up customer delivery charges as utilities are forced to accommodate intermittent generation from solar panels and wind turbines.

We've been sharing nuclear research costs with France since the 2010 strategic defence and security review.

That gets us to half the cost for electricity in the decade 2020 - 2030 then if we stick with fossil and nuclear fuel.

The activists say the subsidies are designed to shield nuclear companies from competition with lower - cost energy sources.

The capital cost of replacing the existing Trident fleet with four new nuclear ballistic missile submarines is officially estimated at # 20bn.

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.

Some older nuclear plants simply can't compete on cost with gas - fuelled rivals.

The average cost of generating nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt - hour in 2006, according to the Atlanta - based utility data provider Ventyx, which puts it on par with coal.

Such a lengthy timeline, combined with hefty up - front costs and lingering public skittishness, suggests that next - generation nuclear faces an uphill battle.

Talk of the UK's withdrawal from Euratom, Europe's nuclear umbrella organisation, as an unavoidable cost of Brexit caused a stink in March, with warnings of big challenges if we left.

Eliminating this financial risk premium makes nuclear power levelized electricity cost competitive with that of coal, and it becomes lower than that of coal when a modest price on carbon dioxide emissions is imposed,» the report says.

Because these cells can be made more quickly than bulky solar panels, the company thinks they might be cost - competitive with coal or nuclear power.

Competing with France, the U.S. and other nuclear nations, Russia offers buyers lower - cost reactor deals that tout safety features engineered with the Chernobyl disaster in mind

«This method has important implications for the way future systematic studies are conducted as it provides researchers with a way to strategically target regions of interest in their study organism, such as single - copy regions of the nuclear genome or portions of organellar genomes, to produce large data sets at low costs,» says Uribe - Convers.

With some modifications, today's commercial nuclear reactors could switch to thorium - based fuels, but at great cost.

«The energy payback time of a nuclear power plant is at present about 11 years compared with natural gas at half a year,» Storm van Leeuwen argues, when the full cost of decommissioning a nuclear power plant at the end of its useful life is included.

By 2020, IEA expects photovoltaic technology fitted on residential and commercial buildings to reach «grid parity,» or the point at which solar power is consistently cost - competitive with conventional fossil fuels and nuclear power.

He argues that because the technological gap between advanced conventional boats and nuclear boats is slowly but surely closing (another unsubstantiated statement), with the former costing half as much, then the days of the nuclear submarine are numbered and it will be allowed to wither on the military vine.

Considering nuclear power plants already have problems with construction cost overruns, any additional costs are likely to meet resistance.

«We sign contracts with companies based on the cost needed to carry out a task,» Masayuki Ono, a general manager for nuclear power at Tepco, told Reuters.

Those alternatives operate fewer hours of the year, but with no burden of fuel cost or fuel - disposal problems the price of power they produce could be low enough to squeeze nuclear power out of the mix.

In an April report on costs associated with the NNSA's ongoing nuclear weapon modernization campaign, the GAO disclosed the existence of an internal NNSA report forecasting that PF - 4 will be unable to meet a congressional demand for production of 30 new pits per year by 2026, as part of a 30 - year, $ 1 trillion nuclear weapons update.

«PRISM has the potential to offer an attractive solution to the disposition of civil plutonium and we look forward to working with GEH as they progress with their proposals to deploy PRISM in the U.K.» The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has contracted GEH to carry out feasibility work in a number of key areas including the proposed commercial structure, disposability of the fuel, risk transfer model, costs and licensability of GEH's PRISM offering

The NuScale Power Module's cost per kWh is competitive with other sources of base load electricity generation, and less than the cost per kWh of large nuclear units.

Combinations of high gas prices and significantly lower capital costs could make nuclear plants competitive with fossil fuel plants, but the bottom line is that in the current economic climate, commercial nuclear generation is not even close to being competitive with fossil - fueled plants and there is no easy path to a competitive market for new nuclear plants.

The original design would have used nuclear power (an RTG engine), but that was replaced with the newer design, without the RTG and for less cost.

That's because the cost of renewable energy has plummeted and in many cases is competitive with fossil fuel - and nuclear - generated electricity.

And, therefore, if you close those distressed nuclear plants, buy efficiency instead — which the regulator can tell you to do --- with the saved operating costs, you will save money and carbon.

Yes, for the individual owner it maybe does, but that at the cost of the rest of the world, because electric energy still comes mostly from coal / oil / nuclear power generators for one, with correspondent pollution and infrastructure load.

Southern has struggled over the past few years with cost over runs from the construction of two new nuclear power plants (Vogle and Kemper).

There have been several utility companies that have struggled with high cost nuclear expansions recently like SCANA.

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 the best case is that we have our pilot plant built by 2023, and that by 2030, this fourth - generation inherently safe design with all sorts of nice characteristics, including cost, becomes the standard for all nuclear builds from that point forward.

Are there real practical problems with it, or is it a matter that the massive R&D costs any nuclear approach needs are unlikely to be footed if there isn't a military application?

Unlike with wind and solar, large volumes of cooling water are a necessity for nuclear power generation, which should also be factored into the costs.

@Nuclear / Solar Cost of nuclear waste do not go into account in recent comparsions with cost efficieCost of nuclear waste do not go into account in recent comparsions with cost efficiecost efficiency.

If we're going to address climate change, it's going to start with solutions experts agree on (efficiency, low - GHG sources such as nuclear, carbon capture and storage, wind, geothermal, cellulosic biofuels, and eventually solar), and processes that experts agree on (increasing the cost of GHG emissions, funding more R&D, mandates sometimes).

I agree with Laurie about the problems with nuclear, though, and have seen studies putting its current cost at $.16 / kwh.

With nuclear, upfront costs are high, but the end costs of decommissioning and of hot fuel rod treatment are even higher.

With costs like that, how can we sustain growth in the nuclear industry?»