No plan for vote on financial rescue for Ohio nuclear plants
http://www.the-review.com/news/20180128/no-plan-for-vote-on-financial-rescue-for-ohio-nuclear-plants COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A state lawmaker says there are no plans to hold more hearings on a proposal to increase electrical bills to help keep Ohio’s two nuclear power plants operating.
Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp. has been pushing for the financial rescue that it says is needed to keep the Davis-Besse nuclear plant near Toledo and the Perry plant near Cleveland operating.
The legislation would give FirstEnergy’s plants an extra $180 million a year.
Republican Sen. Bill Beagle leads the Senate’s Public Utilities Committee. He says he doesn’t anticipate taking up a vote on the plan.
A FirstEnergy executive said earlier this week that the plants will likely close without a financial rescue.
The company has been saying the plants can’t compete with cheaper natural gas plants in the current market.
State of Nevada raises new concerns on plan to license Yucca Mountain as nuclear waste dump
Nevada raises new concerns about Yucca Mountain licensing plan, Las Vegas Review Journal, By Gary Martin Review-Journal Washington Bureau, January 26, 2018 – WASHINGTON — Nevada has detailed fresh concerns about plans to expedite licensing of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear repository in a report that was delivered Friday by the state’s congressional delegation to key House members.
Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., distributed the state’s report to lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce and the House Appropriation committees asking that they review it before moving forward on the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act.
The amendments bill passed out of the Energy Committee on a 49-4 vote last June, and is largely expected to pass in the full House, which has yet to schedule a vote.
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval has led the state’s opposition to storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, noting that “no amount of monetary benefits can compensate for the coerced selection of an unsafe site.”
In the report, the state said the bill does not address the amount of funding that would be needed for expediting the licensing application by the Department of Energy and the participation of federal, state and local governments in the process before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The state also says in its report that the bill ignores potential adverse economic impacts that could result in developing Yucca Mountain, noting the uncertainty of liability of DOE contractors……https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-nevada/nevada-raises-new-concerns-about-yucca-mountain-licensing-plan/
How to impose a radioactive trash dump UK style – bribe communities and bypass local authorities
Times 26th Jan 2018, Communities will receive up to £42 million if they agree to consider
hosting an underground nuclear waste dump. They can keep the money even if
they ultimately decide against it, under government plans. The payments,
which will be spread over 20 years, are aimed at persuading communities to
engage in the process of selecting and testing a site that will store
enough radioactive waste to fill the Albert Hall six times.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said more than one community
could receive the funding, with each being given up to £42 million. The
proposals appear to weaken the power of county councils, making it harder
for them to prevent a community from agreeing to host the £19 billion
“geological disposal facility” (GDF).
A consultation document states
the final decision will be subject to a “test of public support”, which
could be a local referendum. The right to vote in the referendum could be
restricted to a small area around the proposed site.
Cumbria is still viewed as the most suitable location because of the ease of transporting
waste at Sellafield and the willingness of the community. However, other
areas with ageing or decommissioned nuclear plants have been suggested,
including Dungeness, Kent, and Hartlepool, in Co Durham. Doug Parr, of
Greenpeace, said: “Having failed to find a council willing to have
nuclear waste buried under their land, ministers are resorting to the
tactics from the fracking playbook — bribing communities and bypassing
local authorities.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/42m-offer-to-communities-that-take-radioactive-waste-svrjj29nb
France plans to phase out nuclear power without increasing carbon emissions
The centrist government of French President Emmanuel Macron has launched a year-long debate about energy policy before deciding in early 2019 on the future share of nuclear energy in France’s power production. It now stands at 75 percent.
To assist discussions, grid operator RTE has prepared scenarios for cutting nuclear energy’s share from 56 percent to 11 percent by 2035, and an additional scenario on reducing nuclear reliance to 50 percent by 2025.
Junior Energy and Environment Minister Sebastien Lecornu told Enerpresse the scenarios that would lead to the construction of new thermal power stations were held back.
“We are clear about what we want for the energy mix, the increase of carbon emissions is not an option for us,” he said.
France would not build more plants powered by coal or fuel oil, he said, but said the government would consider whether there was a role for gas, which has lower emissions than coal or other fossil fuels.
Lecornu’s office could not immediately be reached for comment.
Sustainable energy advocacy group NegaWatt said on Thursday the most ambitious scenarios for reducing nuclear reliance could be achieved without boosting CO2 emissions provided there was a stronger focus on energy efficiency and if the nuclear reactors had their lifespans’ extended a little beyond 40 years.
EDF wants to extend the lifespan of its reactors to 50 years, but will need approval of nuclear regulator ASN for each reactor. The ASN has said it will rule on the principle of lifespan extensions in 2021. Reporting by Geert De Clercq; Editing by Edmund Blair
Epic crisis in USA’s nuclear industry – Trump’s trying to stop solar power will not save nukes
Trump’s Assault on Solar Masks an Epic Crisis in the Nuclear Industry, The Progressive , by Harvey Wasserman, January 25, 2018 As Donald Trump launches his latest assault on renewable energy—imposing a 30 percent tariff on solar panels imported from China—a major crisis in the nuclear power industry is threatening to shut four high-profile reactors, with more shutdowns to come. These closures could pave the way for thousands of new jobs in wind and solar, offsetting at least some of the losses from Trump’s attack.
Like nearly everything else Trump does, the hike in duties makes no rational sense. Bill McKibben summed it up, tweeting: “Trump imposes 30% tariff on imported solar panels—one more effort to try and slow renewable energy, one more favor for the status quo.”………
the burgeoning U.S. market for cheap Chinese panels has birthed a very large industry. More than a quarter-million Americans now work in photovoltaics, with most of the jobs in building desert arrays or perching the panels on rooftops. Except for the very marginal pressure from Suniva and SolarWorld, solar advocates have focussed on the rapid spread of low-cost panels, even if they come from China.
Powered largely by Chinese product, the cost of a solar-generated watt of power has dropped from $6.00 in the late 1990s to around $0.72 in 2016. Further drops are considered inevitable. At that price, there is virtually no economic margin for any other new energy production construction except wind and natural gas. Even gas—with its uncertain long-term supply—is on the cusp of being priced out.
Thus, the industry’s reactionto Trump’s solar panel tariff has been fierce.
“We are not happy with this decision,” Abigail Ross Hopper, president of the American Solar Energy Association, told Reuters. “It’s just basic economics—if you raise the price of a product, it’s going to decrease demand for that product.” Trump’s move is predicted to drop upcoming solar installations by 10 to 15 percent and cost some 23,000 jobs.
Sustainable energy professor Scott Sklar, in an email to The Progressive, estimated that Trump’s 30 percent tariff will, after four years, “retard the solar market by 9 percent, cause the loss of thousands of U.S. jobs, and not save the two companies that brought the anti-competitive tariff request initially. The tariff was a political statement to China rather than specifically addressing the health of the U.S. solar industry and increasing U.S. solar jobs.”
Two major developments in the nuclear power industry further illustrate the absurdity of Trump’s decision.
In California, the Public Utilities Commission has gutted a major agreement that would have kept two mammoth reactors at Diablo Canyon operating for several more years. The landmark deal—cut between Pacific Gas & Electric, the host communities around San Luis Obispo, the reactors’ union workers and two environmental groups—called for PG&E to collect some $1.3 billion from ratepayers.
But the California commission cut PG&E’s take to about $300 million. To continue running the two fast-deteriorating old reactors would require massive capital repairs. The company also has admitted that all of Diablo’s power can be otherwise produced with zero- and low-carbon green technologies.
While Trump’s tariffs may slightly alter the math, they’re not expected to make photovoltaics, wind, geothermal, or increased efficiency more expensive than the power Diablo might generate in the coming seven years. Thus, Diablo opponents like Linda Sealey of the San Luis-based Mothers for Peace are extremely hopeful for early shutdowns.
“We think this makes it likely they’ll shut as early as 2020,” she told me January 18 on California Solartopia at KPFK radio in Los Angeles. “They just can’t compete.”
A parallel fate may soon overtake Ohio’s ancient Perry and Davis-Besse reactors on Lake Erie. Because the increasingly decrepit nuclear plants have been priced out of the market and face huge capital repairs, their owner FirstEnergy has been desperately begging the Ohio legislature for massive bailouts, which it has so far resisted. As a result FirstEnergy is poised to go bankrupt, and may soon be bought out by financiers expected to insist the two reactors finally shut. A decision is expected in April.
The shutdown of four more major reactors would be a huge blow to the downwardly spiraling atomic energy industry. California’s booming solar business employs more than 100,000 Americans, more than are currently digging coal nationwide. The void left by Diablo’s shutdown would generate thousands of Golden State jobs and billions in renewable revenue.
In northern Ohio, massive wind potential is also poised to create far more jobs than are currently in place at the two reactors, with energy to be generated far more cheaply. Overall, the closure of these four high-profile plants would thus accelerate the already rapid run away from nuclear power toward renewable sources, regardless of any attempt by the Trump Administration to alter the course.
Harvey “Sluggo” Wasserman’s “California Solartopia Show” is broadcast at KPFK-Pacifica 90.7FM in Los Angeles. His “Green Power & Wellness Show” is podcast at prn.fm. His History of the US and Solartopia! are at www.solartopia.org, which will publish his America at the Brink of Rebirthlater this year. http://progressive.org/dispatches/trumps-assault-on-solar-masks-an-epic-crisis-in-nuclear-180125/
UK’s £1m a year bribes to communities to host nuclear waste
Communities offered £1m a year to host nuclear waste dump https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/25/communities-offered-1m-a-year-to-host-nuclear-waste-dump
New search for communities willing to host underground site for thousands of years, Guardian, Adam Vaughan, 25 Jan 18, Local communities around England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be offered £1m a year to volunteer to host an underground nuclear waste disposal facility for thousands of years, as part of a rebooted government programme.
The financial incentive is one way the government hopes to encourage communities to host the £12bn facility, after previous efforts failed in 2013 when Cumbria county council rejected the project.
Under new plans published on Thursday, a test of public support will be required for the scheme to go ahead, which could include a local referendum.
The only areas to explore the idea last time round were Copeland and Allerdale borough councils in Cumbria, and Shepway District Council in Kent.
This time, interested communities that explore hosting the facility will also receive £1m a year, which officials say could be spent on developing skills locally or apprenticeships. The payments, which could rise to £2.5m annually as a community considers whether to proceed, are expected to last for around five years.
The geological disposal facility (GDF) is seen by experts as the best long-term solution to storing the estimated 750,000 cubic metres of waste generated by half a century of nuclear power and defence, which would fill three quarters of Wembley Stadium.
It also includes the radioactive material created by potentially five new plants that the government expects to be built, including Hinkley Point C, which EDF Energy is constructing in Somerset.
The Institute of Directors said storing waste deep underground would be cheaper than storing it above ground, as it is at present at around 30 sites.Business, unions and local authority groups welcomed the renewed bid to site a GDF.
“Running costs for a geological disposal facility storing the waste 1,000 metres below the surface would be significantly lower,” the business group said.
Richard Harrington, energy minister, said: “We owe it to future generations to take action now to find a suitable permanent site for the safe disposal of our radioactive waste. And it is right that local communities have a say.”
But Greenpeace criticised the payments, calling them bribes, and said new nuclear power plants should not go ahead without a long-term solution in place for their waste.
Doug Parr, the group’s chief scientist, said: “Having failed to find a council willing to have nuclear waste stored under their land, ministers are resorting to the tactics from the fracking playbook – bribing communities and bypassing local authorities.
“With six new nuclear plants being planned, the waste problem is just going to get much worse. Since there is no permanent solution for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, the responsible thing to do would be to stop producing more of it instead of just passing the radioactive buck to future generations.”
Nuclear waste is currently stored at about 30 sites, but predominantly at ground level at Sellafield in Cumbria. The GDF project is expected to cost £12bn, spread over a century.
Macron’s France weakening on plans to phase out nuclear power?
France crimps debate on reducing reliance on nuclear: activists say https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclearpower/france-crimps-debate-on-reducing-reliance-on-nuclear-activists-say-idUSKBN1FE2MU, 26 Jan 18, Geert De Clercq PARIS (Reuters) – The French government is hampering discussion about how to reduce the country’s reliance on nuclear energy by limiting debate about more radical alternatives, renewable energy advocates said on Thursday.
France’s previous socialist government pledged to reduce the share of nuclear in power generation to 50 percent by 2025, from 75 percent today. President Emmanuel Macron promised to respect that pledge during his election campaign last year, but since taking office he has pushed the target back by a decade.
Macron now wants to set new targets in a multi-year energy plan that will be debated this year and presented in early 2019.
But renewable energy activists say that at some workshops earlier this month, the government blocked discussion of scenarios under which France would radically reduce its nuclear power capacity, instead focusing on more pro-nuclear scenarios.
Energy and Environment Minister Nicolas Hulot has denied that the government favored the most pro-nuclear scenarios, saying it merely eliminated the two most extreme scenarios and kept the “median” scenarios. He did not specify which scenarios had been eliminated.
Late last year, French grid operator RTE published four 2035 scenarios under which nuclear capacity would be reduced to various degrees from the current 63 gigawatt (GW).
Under the “Volt” scenario, nuclear capacity would be cut to 55 GW by closing just nine of state-owned utility EDF’s 58 nuclear reactors and leaving the share of nuclear in power production at 56 percent. The “Ampere” scenario would close 16 reactors and leave the share of nuclear at 46 percent.
Two more radical scenarios, “Watt” and “Hertz”, would close as many as 52 and 25 reactors respectively, with the Watt scenario cutting the share of nuclear to as little as 11 percent. The remaining power would come from renewables (71 percent) and gas (18 percent).
“The Watt and Hertz scenarios were eliminated from the presentations at the government’s request,” said Yves Marignac of NegaWatt, a group which advocates higher renewables use.
NegaWatt took part in two workshops to prepare the public debate on the issue. It was joined by several energy-focused NGOs, EDF, nuclear firm Orano, and lobby groups. The debates are supposed to lead to a first draft of a multi-year energy plan by summer and a final plan in early 2019. Its conclusions will be crucial for European power markets as they will determine how much nuclear baseload capacity remains available.
· A source involved with organizing the workshops confirmed the government had instructed RTE to withdraw two scenarios.
· “All scenarios were mentioned, but only two were reviewed in detail,” he said.
· A ministry spokeswoman said two scenarios had indeed been removed from the presentation but declined to give details.
· “It is inconceivable that these two scenarios would be withheld from public debate,” NegaWatt’s Thierry Salomon said.
· France has withheld key information on nuclear before.
· In the months before the parliament vote on the 2015 energy law, Hulot’s predecessor Segolene Royal barred publication of an environment agency ADEME report showing France could switch to 100 percent renewables without extra costs.
· “At least this time the information is public. But it looks like the government is putting the interests of the nuclear industry ahead of the energy policy debate,” Salomon said.
· > Link to ADEME report story: tinyurl.com/y84ow838</a Reporting by Geert De Clercq. Editing by Jane Merriman
UK’s Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) wants to raise permissable levels of radiation release
AWE bids for ‘more realistic’ nuclear terrorism tests licence, The UK’s nuclear warhead factory is bidding for a licence change to run “more realistic” tests in preparation for “nuclear terrorism”.
The Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in Berkshire wants to raise levels of radiation it can release from its site……..http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-42801822
South Africa has no money for nuclear power: Ramaphosa
SA has no money for nuclear power: Ramaphosa, ENC.com, SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG – “We have excess power right now and we have no money to go for major nuclear plant building.”
Public unaware of the massive size of planned Sizewell C nuclear station – shown in new film
East Anglian Daily Times 23rd Jan 2018, Drone footage shows off ‘huge impact’ Sizewell C could have on
landscape. Campaigners fighting proposals for a new nuclear power station
on the Suffolk coast claim drone footage of Hinkley Point shows what a
“massive, life-changing, countryside-destroying intrusion” Sizewell C
would be.
Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) says the film of work taking
place on the £19.6billion project to build Britain’s first new nuclear
plant for more than 20 years shows the dramatic scale and impact of the
project.
TASC chair Pete Wilkinson said: “The actual scale and impact of
the proposed development at Sizewell has never been fully explained to the
public and they have never been asked if they support it or oppose it.
“It has always been disingenuously described by politicians as an
inevitability which it is not: new nuclear is a choice not an imperative.
We can and should say ‘no’ and be given the opportunity to tell our
politicians that we reject this monstrous plan. “This footage gives us
the evidence on which to base an informed view about the Sizewell
development and shows the fate that awaits this area if EDF get their way.
This two minute film does what EDF and the government have been unwilling
to do for five years – to show us just how Sizewell C will utterly
devastate a huge area of Suffolk on a scale that we cannot even think about
tolerating.
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/drone-footage-shows-off-huge-impact-sizewell-c-could-have-on-landscape-1-5366719
Bill to subsidise New Jersey’s nuclear power stations – unaffordable handout to the industry
THE NUCLEAR SUBSIDY BATTLE IS NOT OVER, NJ Spotlight , STEVEN S. GOLDENBERG | JANUARY 24, 2018
New Jersey citizens and businesses can ill afford the massive wealth transfer and regulatory capitulation that PSEG’s bill would impose. Opponents of PSEG’s nuclear subsidy bill applauded former Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto’s refusal to post the bill for a vote in the Legislature’s lame-duck session, effectively killing the bill. However, the PSEG subsidy fight is far from over, as the identical bill has already been reintroduced and scheduled for a hearing in the new legislative session. It now falls to the Murphy administration to decide whether to support this badly flawed, one-sided bill that would provide unjustified regulatory perks, including billions of dollars in unwarranted subsidies, to PSEG’s profitable nuclear plants. For the reasons that follow, Gov. Murphy should follow the lead of the former speaker and reject the bill.
It is a sad truth that literally every provision in the bill favors the interests of PSEG over ratepayers and competitors, with no apparent effort having been made to strike a fair balance between them. The bill would shift all financial risks associated with the future operation of the nuclear plants to ratepayers, and the out-of-market subsidy created would wreak havoc on the functioning of the interstate wholesale energy markets, paving the way to even higher energy costs in the future.
The bill would afford PSEG a continuing $320 million per year subsidy — an amount arbitrarily established by PSEG without regard to the alleged future losses of the nuclear plants, while conveniently sidestepping the Board of Public Utilities’ century-old ratemaking processes that are used to establish just and reasonable rates. It is noteworthy that the bill is devoid of any provision that would obligate PSEG to provide a single tangible benefit to anyone in return for the financial windfall it would receive…….
Because there is no issue regarding the nuclear plants’ current profitability, the relief the bill would provide is unwarranted. New Jersey should follow Connecticut’s recent example and require PSEG, as a condition precedent to the receipt of any future relief, to make comprehensive financial disclosures regarding the current and projected profitability of the nuclear plants…….http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/18/01/23/op-ed-nuclear-subsidy-battle-is-not-over/
Poll shows that Americans fear Trump’s ability to launch nuclear weapons, and doubt his mental stability
The majority of Americans are afraid of Trump’s ability to launch nuclear missiles. They also don’t have a lot of faith in his mental stability. Vox, By We may no longer be teaching American schoolchildren how to “duck and cover,” but a new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows the threat of nuclear war is once again on the minds of the American populace. A new poll finds most Americans don’t trust President Trump with the power to launch nuclear weapons, and a majority are at least “somewhat” concerned that he’ll launch an unjustified attack.
The poll comes less than a month after Trump’s tweet comparing the size of his “nuclear button” to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s.
Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to report fear, for example, with almost six in 10 Democrats saying they are “very concerned” about Trump ordering an unjustified nuclear attack, compared to about three in 10 independents and fewer than one in 10 Republicans.
Gender also plays a role, with twice as many women as men saying they are “very” concerned Trump could launch a nuclear attack — 42 percent versus 22 percent.
Those who are most concerned about him launching a nuclear attack without justification are also those who have the least confidence in his mental stability. Only 48 percent of respondents said they thought Trump was mentally stable when asked about the president’s description of himself as a “very stable genius.” Forty-seven percent, meanwhile, don’t think he’s mentally stable.
Eighty-four percent of those who say Trump is not mentally stable are at least somewhat concerned that he could launch an unwarranted nuclear attack, while 72 percent of those who say Trump is stable trust him to handle nuclear weapons……… https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/23/16923020/americans-afraid-trump-nuclear-missiles-launch-mental-stability
Sweden’s Land and Environmental Court not satisfied with safety of planned nuclear waste repository.
Swedish regulators disagree on safety of nuclear waste plan https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sweden-nuclear-regulator/swedish-regulators-disagree-on-safety-of-nuclear-waste-plan-idUSKBN1FC21P, JANUARY 24, 2018 , Lefteris Karagiannopoulos, OSLO (Reuters) JANUARY 24, 2018 – Sweden’s radiation safety authority (SSM) and an environmental court issued diverging recommendations to the government on Tuesday on whether to allow the construction of a nuclear waste repository.
While the SSM said the nuclear fuel and waste management company SKB should be allowed to go ahead with the plan, which may take 10 years to complete, the Land and Environmental court said it was not certain of the proposed repository’s safety.
“There is still uncertainty about the ability of the capsule to contain the nuclear waste in the long term,” the court said, adding that further documentation was required.
The final decision to approve or reject the facility, designed to store up to 12,000 tonnes of spent fuel from Sweden’s nuclear plants, will be in the government’s hands.
In a statement to Reuters, Environment and Energy Minister Karolina Skog said no decision would be made this year.
SKB, controlled by Sweden’s nuclear plant operators, applied in March 2011 to build the repository at Forsmark in southwest Sweden.
Eva Hallden, SKB’s director, said the firm would produce additional documentation, which it was confident would allay the safety concerns of the environmental court.
Sweden currently stores its spent nuclear fuel in an interim facility near the Oskarshamn nuclear plant. Editing by Kevin Liffey
Hinkley Point C to get £14bn from UK and Japanese taxpayers – despite ever-cheaper renewables
new chief executive of EDF Energy admitted last week that it had been a
“monstrous job” drumming up the backing for the UK’s first new
nuclear power station in decades.
defeat their biggest enemy: financing.
firm Hitachi, which wants to build a plant on the island of Anglesey.
£19.5bn, with more than £14bn to come from loans from the UK and Japanese
governments. The rationale for Tokyo is clear. The big question is why the
UK would want to shoulder the risk of such a huge scheme.
plants has been political anathema for years. It has become a government
mantra that the subsidy cost promised to EDF is justified because the
public is not bearing the risks of building Hinkley.
wind capacity as there is today, according to a report this week.
Renewables, battery storage and other technologies could prove to be the
real monster facing nuclear.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/21/carillion-must-hope-real-answers-dont-usually-get-them
Ontario’s nuclear dreams no match for the reality of falling electricity demand
Angela Bischoff, Outreach Director, 23 Jan 18, Since 2005, demand for electricity in Ontario has been steadily falling. In 2017, it fell a further 3.6% meaning that demand has dropped by 16% since 2005. That is the equivalent of taking 2.5 million homes off the grid – like unplugging all the houses and apartments in the City of Toronto twice over.
Ontario is not alone in seeing a sustained drop in demand. This is a trend that has taken hold in many countries and provinces thanks to new technologies such as super-efficient LED lighting and smart controls, cost-effective energy efficiency programs, and economic changes. In fact, reducing the need to generate electricity in the first place has become Ontario’s lowest cost way of addressing our energy needs – the province paid on average just 2.2 cents to save a kilowatt-hour of electricity in 2016.
But oddly, the Wynne government shows no signs of recognizing the growing mismatch between its plans to spend billions of dollars on re-building aging nuclear reactors and the ever-decreasing need for the power they would produce. In fact, in order to justify continuing to operate the 47-year-old Pickering Nuclear Station – the highest cost nuclear plant in North America – the province is currently curtailing 26% of the potential annual output of our cleaner and safer wind and solar power plants.
Does it make sense to pay 7 times more to re-build aging nuclear reactors than to enhance energy efficiency? Should we rebuild nuclear reactors that have to run 24/7 when demand is falling and supply patterns are being rapidly changed by the introduction of increasingly low-cost renewable sources? These are questions the government seems determined to ignore.
Instead of simply ignoring the numbers, a far better way to act on these trends is to strike a deal with Quebec to import low-cost, flexible water power; continue to expand our cost-effective conservation programs; and embrace new renewable energy opportunities right here at home.
-
Archives
- October 2026 (112)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
