Archive for Nuclear
There is something I totally overlooked while writing earlier this week my article on how Europe goes forward on energy. Indeed, last month Italy announced its intention to build nuclear reactors this decade.
Italian electricity is both heavily reliant on foreign fossil sources (70 percent) and on imports (ten percent comes from France’s own reactors). Building four nuclear reactors will decrease both.
A total of ten reactors might be built by the next 20 years to enable the country to get 25 percent of its electricity from this low carbon source. Continue »
I found during the past few weeks news showing that Europe is investing more and more in solving the climate / energy equation by using various solutions : energy efficiency, smart grids and renewable energies.
Here are some examples : Sweden pledged this week for the installation of 2,000 wind turbines by the year 2020 and the United Kingdom is working on efficiency in the building sector.
Additionally, several countries are due to invest 30 billions euros in smart grids to connect renewable energy sources from across the continent. Continue »
Things are slowly but irresistibly changing in the United States. Wind power added ten gigawatts of capacity to the grids last year alone and coal is less and less used to generate electricity.
Meanwhile, a nuclear renaissance may be under way in America as last month President Obama announced a $8.3 billion (6 billion euros) loan to build in Georgia the first reactors in 30 years.
I dream of America being powered with 40 percent nuclear, 40 percent renewables and only 20 percent thermal. There is a long way to go but could this become a reality ? Continue »
Last month the founder of Microsoft gave a speech on low carbon energy and climate change at TED, a renowned event on Technology, Entertainment and Design.
To Mr. Gates we need five means : carbon capture and storage, nuclear power and renewable energies (solar PV, Concentrated Solar Thermal and Wind power). I agree with that.
To him, we need 20 years to research on the needed breakthroughs to achieve zero emissions energy sources and twenty other years to apply them. I beg to differ on this. Continue »
While having a look at the RSS feed of TreeHugger I found something that made me smile : How Australia Could Be Carbon Neutral in 10 Years. Let’s be honest : it really can’t be done. Let’s see why here.
The plan outlined by Beyond Zero Emissions states that all the energy consumed in the country would come from 60 percent concentrated solar thermal in the deserts and 40 percent of wind power.
This sounds cool but their price estimates are of $360 billion (265 billion euros). To the Mother Nature Network (MNN) it would be “ significantly more than that”. Continue »
I believe fossil fuels will be replaced sooner or later by electricity. This might prove to be a good thing as heat pumps and electric vehicles are two excellent energy efficient solutions.
Thus, electric consumption is rising and is due to keep rising in the next decades. Having low carbon sources to generate electricity is very thus important for a country.
This is the occasion for me to propose you data on the carbon intensity and origin of electricity generation in some affluent countries. Continue »
According to the New York Times around 10 percent of the US electricity is provided by old nuclear bombs, including Russian ones. I find very inspiring that weapons once targeting houses are now powering them.
These agreements concern thousands of warheads and are part of a non proliferation policy enacted by both countries. With up to 5,000 nuclear warheads, there is enough plutonium to generate electricity for 50 years.
However these agreements – known as Megatons to Megawatts – are due to expire in 2013. I hope it will continue after. This is to me the 11th reason to support nuclear.
For the fourth and last part of my nuclear series and after reviewing 10 reasons to support nuclear, the past and present of this energy source and a review of the main fission future solutions we are finishing with fusion.
Contrary to future fission solutions, fusion won’t happen before mid-century as it is the exact opposite of current fission reactors. Instead of breaking large atoms, fusion aggregates small atoms to create larger ones.
This is what happens in any star like our sun. As this endeavor is very complex and costly, I believe we shouldn’t think of fusion to solve our current climate and energy problems. Continue »
It is a well known fact, coal-fired plants are by far the most carbon dioxide intensive energy source. Now according to an article on Celsias coal ash is also much more radioactive than nuclear waste.
The massive coal sludge accident in Tennessee last year showed that coal-fired plants can massively destroy ecosystems. This adds up to the already well documented air and water pollution induced by such solutions.
It is high time we work on cutting coal consumption around the world. For example, decreasing American coal consumption by 62 % is feasible. Continue »
The International Energy Agency published today it’s annual World Energy Outlook. The 2009 version is even more urging action on climate change than the previous version.
As Reuters noted in its article : ” The world will have to spend an extra $500 billion to cut carbon emissions for each year it delays implementing a major assault on global warming. “
This huge amount of money should urge our leaders meeting next month in Copenhagen to prepare the future of the Kyoto Protocol to act NOW on climate change. Continue »
