The French government announced a huge investment package for renewable energy last week, totaling €1.35 billion ($173 billion). The money is to be invested over the next 4 years.
Thin Film Solar Panels Are Here
The French government announced a huge investment package for renewable energy last week, totaling €1.35 billion ($173 billion). The money is to be invested over the next 4 years.
The French government announced a huge investment package for renewable energy last week, totaling €1.35 billion ($1.73 billion). The money is to be invested over the next 4 years.
It was just a few hours ago when I wrote that I thought I’d be delving into the topic of nuclear energy a little more soon. Well, soon is now.
This post is about two nuclear reactors that are an urgent matter to some (in the nuclear industry and politics) and also, potentially, the source of a very big bill for U.S. taxpayers.
For ages, people have been saying: “Solar is a great, clean, renewable energy source, but it is just too expensive. Other energy sources, like nuclear, may have some (or serious) environmental risks, but they are cheaper.”
Now, a new report out of Duke University says that solar energy and nuclear energy have passed a “historic crossover,” where decreasing solar energy costs and increasing nuclear energy costs have met, and then parted. Solar energy is now cheaper than nuclear energy and is getting increasingly cheaper every day.

A major factor causing the BP oil spill to be the disaster that it is turning out to be is deregulation of the oil industry. You would think that if people, especially politicians, learned one thing from this disaster, it would be that we need strong government oversight of risky technologies.
It seems right now that some in the nuclear industry and Congress have missed that completely or just haven’t heard the news about the BP oil spill at all.

Republicans opposed to clean energy in the US (who knows why?) have repeatedly put forward the idea (and claimed it was absolutely true) that a climate change and clean energy bill would cost the US jobs.
A new non-partisan report out by the Peterson Institute for International Economics finds that the American Power Act would actually result in an increase in jobs, hundreds of thousands of them per year (on average) from 2011 to 2020.
New official stats from China show that renewable energy capacity is growing faster than coal now.
By the end of 2010, hydro, nuclear and wind power should account for 26% of the country’s electricity generation, providing about 250 GW of capacity. “Thermal power”, largely coal-fired power stations, accounts for about 700 GW of capacity. However, 96 GW of the China’s 178 GW of new power capacity will be from renewables in 2010, compared to 80 GW from thermal power. So, the tide may be changing.
China is reportedly planning to produce 15% of its electricity from low-carbon technology by 2020, and to reduce it’s carbon intensity by 40-45% from the 2005 level.
Zhang Guobao, head of the National Energy Administration, told the government-owned newspaper China Daily this last week that a national program consisting of billions of dollars of investment in wind, solar and nuclear power would be launched sometime soon.
This post contains additional media. Click here to view the full post.
.
I think it’s commonly known now that Obama is quite supportive of nuclear power. He mentioned it prominently in his State of the Union speech as a form of clean energy (“to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country….”). Now, he has announced over $8 billion in loan guarantees to build two new nuclear reactors in Georgia (“scheduled to be the first U.S. nuclear power plant to break ground in nearly three decades”) and has proposed $54 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power plants.
Of course, it didn’t take long for environmentalists, economists and others to jump on all of this and call it a bad idea, (see: “Obama’s nuclear error: $54 billion in loan guarantees make little policy or political sense“, “5 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy is Even Worse than Clean Coal“, “Next in Line for a Bailout: The Nuclear Industry?“, “There’s a New Drive for Nuclear Power, But It’s Still a Financial Dead End“, “The loan arranger: Obama triples budget for nuke loan guarantee program… but hasn’t seen a single promising application in two years“).
Energy Secretary Steven Chu decided to respond to some of these concerns on Facebook, explaining the administration’s rationale for supporting nuclear.
Of course, the debate is not over. And now, to try to stop the new nuclear reactors in Georgia and others from being built, Friends of the Earth is running very eerie TV ads on the topic (one above and another one below).
“Even if nuclear reactors weren’t top terrorist targets,” the one above asks, “even if radioactive waste didn’t remain deadly for ten thousand years, even if you wouldn’t mind radioactive waste passing through your town, how would you feel about exposing your family to a potential radiation accident? Tell President Obama: ‘No bailout for new nuclear reactors. They’re just not safe.’”
This post contains additional media. Click here to view the full post.
.
I think it’s commonly known now that Obama is quite supportive of nuclear power. He mentioned it prominently in his State of the Union speech as a form of clean energy (“to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country….”). Now, he has announced over $8 billion in loan guarantees to build two new nuclear reactors in Georgia (“scheduled to be the first U.S. nuclear power plant to break ground in nearly three decades”) and has proposed $54 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power plants.
Of course, it didn’t take long for environmentalists, economists and others to jump on all of this and call it a bad idea, (see: “Obama’s nuclear error: $54 billion in loan guarantees make little policy or political sense“, “5 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy is Even Worse than Clean Coal“, “Next in Line for a Bailout: The Nuclear Industry?“, “There’s a New Drive for Nuclear Power, But It’s Still a Financial Dead End“, “The loan arranger: Obama triples budget for nuke loan guarantee program… but hasn’t seen a single promising application in two years“).
Energy Secretary Steven Chu decided to respond to some of these concerns on Facebook, explaining the administration’s rationale for supporting nuclear.
Of course, the debate is not over. And now, to try to stop the new nuclear reactors in Georgia and others from being built, Friends of the Earth is running very eerie TV ads on the topic (one above and another one below).
“Even if nuclear reactors weren’t top terrorist targets,” the one above asks, “even if radioactive waste didn’t remain deadly for ten thousand years, even if you wouldn’t mind radioactive waste passing through your town, how would you feel about exposing your family to a potential radiation accident? Tell President Obama: ‘No bailout for new nuclear reactors. They’re just not safe.’”
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Aug | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||