A U.S. government-funded report has concluded that small, modular nuclear reactors may be the best option for continuing to develop the U.S. nuclear power industry in the wake of the disaster at Fukushima, Japan.

The report, prepared by the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, said that smaller reactors that can essentially be mass-produced could be a safe, economically viable alternative to building larger nuclear reactors.

Larger reactors produce gigawatts of power and can cost $10 billion to build, while the modular reactors would generate 600 megawatts or less and could replace aging, 200- to 400-gigawatt coal plants that will be phased out in the coming decades, according to the report.

Co-authored by Robert Rosner, former director of the Argonne National Laboratory, the report said that the smaller reactors could be factory-built as modular components and then shipped to local sites for assembly.

Rosner said that an important safety aspect of the modular reactors is that they are designed to eliminate the need for human intervention during an emergency, as the reactors can be cooled by thermal convection, rather than manually-operated pumps.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• France Invests €1B in Nuclear, Saying Moratorium ‘Makes No Sense’
• Russia Builds Floating Nuclear Plant – Is This Safe?
• Are Small Nuclear Reactors Safer?
• Is Belgium the Next Country to Switch Off Nuclear Power?
• Can Uranium 238 Solve the Energy Crisis?

The World Bank is planning to limit its funding for coal-fired power plants to the world’s poorest nations, bowing to pressure from environmental groups and governments that have criticized the bank’s record on funding fossil fuel projects, according to published reports.

Under proposed new regulations, the World Bank would provide loans or grants for coal plants only in “the very poorest countries,” and only if the applicants have shown that the plants are necessary and that alternative solutions, including renewable energy projects, are not feasible, according to the Guardian.

The proposed changes come a year after the World Bank gave a controversial $4 billion loan to a South African company to build one of the world’s largest coal plants. While the new rules would also favor increased investment in renewable energy, critics called the proposal inadequate.

The rules would allow the bank to spend as much money as ever on fossil fuels and “condemn” poor countries to a high-carbon future, said Alison Doig of the nonprofit group, Christian Aid.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Rural Bangladesh Taps Into Solar Power With World Bank Funding
• World Bank Lends Record Amount for Renewable Energy… But also for Coal
• Funding for Dirty Energy and Emissions Casts Shadow on PNC Bank’s Green Image
• South Africa Will Use Solar Power to Fight Climate Change
• Carbon Sequestration – an optimal clean technology?

Last week, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted a petition by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to limit sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from a Pennsylvania power plant. Emissions from the coal-fired power plant, Portland Generating Station in Northampton County, have adversely impacted air quality in four northwest NJ counties: Warren, Sussex, Morris, and Hunterdon. The EPA has ordered the plant to reduce its SO2 emissions by 81 percent over a three year period.

It’s known as the “Transport Rule”. Under the Clean Air Act, states can file petition against polluters in neighboring states in which the neighbors’ air emissions negatively affect the state’s air quality. Due to the prevailing winds in the United States, the eastern states are the ones most affected. EPA estimates that the transport rule will reduce SO2 emissions 71 percent from 2005 levels by 2014, and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions by 52 percent.

The NJDEP has found the transport of emissions from the PA plant to be unlawful and filed a petition in 2010 for the EPA to take action. The NJDEP determined that these emissions significantly contribute to nonattainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for SO2 and particulate matter (PM), particularly in Knowlton Township in Warren County. Excessive exposure to SO2 can cause respiratory difficulties, especially children, the elderly, and people with asthma.

As part of the petition, NJDEP include several exhibits such as several air quality monitoring and analysis, and existing wind fields in the region. The evidence points directly to the PA plant as the cause of nonattainment in the northwest NJ region. EPA conducted their own modeling which concurred. Usually, a mix of sources from multiple locations is responsible. But in this case, the PA plant alone is found to be the culprit.

Coal-fired power is one of the dirtier sources of electricity which the US uses, and it uses a lot of it. Coal plants emit large quantities of SO2 and NOx which contribute to respiratory difficulties as well as acid rain. They also emit large amounts of particulate matter. There are control devices available for capturing these pollutants in the flue gas before release into the atmosphere. However, current technology cannot capture all of it, and many plants are not equipped with the newest state-of-the-art equipment.

Now, the EPA has ruled in favor of the NJDEP petition and will be making new requirements of the Portland Generating Station. They will be accepting comments on this proposal until May 27, 2011 and will be holding a hearing on April 27, 2011 in Oxford, NJ to get public comments. The hearing will provide stakeholders to voice their opinions verbally and in writing.

Click here for more information on EPA’s actions.

Article by David A. Gabel, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• Solar Success on the Line in Pennsylvania
• Students Push Higher Education to Lead the Charge Against Climate Change
• California ‘Clean Car’ Rules Mandate Boost in Electric Vehicle Sales
• Support for Nuclear Power Drops Sharply in the U.S., Poll Says
• California’s Air Quality Plan to be Rejected by the EPA

In a couple of past posts I’ve criticized plans made by the South African government and World Bank to build some of the planet’s largest coal plants in South Africa—thereby dramatically increasing the country’s contribution to climate change. But give credit where credit is due: last week South Africa announced plans to also build the world’s largest solar energy park, which by 2020 will produce five gigawatts of electricity. This is an encouraging sign South Africa sees the need to reduce dependence on coal. If successful, the giant solar park may serve as a model for countries around the world to replicate.

Over 90% of South Africa’s electricity generation now comes from burning coal, and the nation is far and away the largest contributor to climate change in Africa. Yet like most developing countries, South Africa understandably wants to be able to generate more electricity to power homes and industry and increase the reliability of its grid. By 2020, South Africa’s energy department recommends increasing energy generation by forty gigawatts to accomplish these goals. Prospects for the climate will be grim if all or most of this electricity comes from coal. For South Africa to improve its grid while minimizing climate change, the country will need to invest substantially in renewable resources.

Fortunately South Africa has large renewable resources. The province of Northern Cape, where the newly-unveiled solar park will be located, is one of the sunniest places on the planet and has a climate ideally suited to generate solar power. Because the province has a relatively small population, there is plenty of room for a solar farm of mammoth proportions. Nine thousand hectares have been set aside so far, with the likelihood that more land will be added over time. The project could be producing one gigawatt of electricity as soon as 2012, and five times that amount by 2020.

Of course this is still just a fraction of the amount by which South Africa plans to expand electricity generation. One really good renewable energy project doesn’t make up for building some of the world’s largest coal plants—particularly when these fossil fuel plants have not been convincingly shown to benefit low-income ratepayers. But the sooner this quickly growing economy starts investing in large renewable energy projects, the more likely it is South Africa can change the terms of its long relationship with coal. The new solar park’s project manager, Jonathan de Vries, predicts that if this project is successful it will spur the government to invest in more solar farms.

De Vries is also quoted citing climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions as one reason South Africa should shift from coal to solar power. This is one more sign residents of the country are increasingly aware of the role South Africa plays in combating climate change. It’s too soon to tell yet if the new solar farm marks a real sea change in the South African government’s acceptance of its climate obligations. But this week’s news that one of the world’s most coal-dependent economies will build the biggest solar power project on the planet is certainly an encouraging sign.

Article by Nick Engelfried, appearing courtesy Justmeans.

Related posts:

• South Africa’s Solar Power Potential
• World’s Biggest Solar Park Set for Sunny South Africa
• South Africa Embraces Campaign For Sustainable Lighting
• South Korea Seeking Rare Earth Concessions in South Africa
• French Loan to Finance South African Eskom Wind Project

(Reuters) – Old coal-fired power plants in Europe must be closed by the end of 2023 if their owners are not prepared to fit equipment to filter out acidifying pollutants, European Union member countries agreed on Friday, two sources in the talks said.

All other power stations must start planning to cut out pollutants such as sulphur and nitrogen oxides that damage human health and soil and water quality.

But countries that are struggling to get the industry cleaned up can get a delay until June 30, 2020, under the informal deal on the Industrial Emissions Directive, the sources added.

European ambassadors in Brussels approved the deal, which was reached in informal talks with the European Parliament late on Wednesday. It must be formally approved by parliament in the coming weeks before becoming law, but the sources say that is almost certain.

Article by Pete Harrison; editing by Anthony Barker; appearing courtesy Reuters.

photo: Rennett Stowe

Related posts:

• Video: Too Dirty For College
• Electricity Co-Op Chooses “New Power” Over Coal Energy and Emissions
• Good News on Climate Change: More Coal Power Leaving the Grid
• US Interior Department Fails to Deliver Clean Energy
• Geothermal Power Could Change Energy and Emissions Landscape in West Virginia

A new advertising campaign was launched by the Sierra Club recently as part of their Campuses Beyond Coal Campaign, designed to show that while college students accept all manner of filthy things, some are just too dirty – like coal!

The long-term aim of the campaign is to successfully shut down or replace campus coal plants. The ad campaign targets schools in 11 states that are currently reliant on coal fueled power sources.

Check out one of their cool little clips below.

Article by Kate R. appearing courtesy of Celsias

Related posts:

• Middlebury College Experiments With Sustainable Biomass
• The U.S.’s Greenest Colleges
• EcoDorm Offers ‘Green’ College Living
• Meet the Couple Who Love Their Veggie Car
• Oh Behave – The Simple Economics of Sustainability

“No doubts remain. Climate change is real and the build-up of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is increasingly at an alarming rate.” With these words, Rafael Quiroga, General Manager of Accion RSE, initiated the seminar “Corporate Strategic Management of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions.” This is not another “green business” seminar from a European or North American city, it took place here — in Santiago, Chile.

The event brought together speakers from the Chilean private sector that gave concrete examples of their companies’ climate change and GHG management initiatives. First, it showed how Essbio, a water purification company, has been dealing with the ever-prescient and escalating challenges of decreasing water reserves due to climate change.  Second, it illustrated the emissions and energy reductions Xstrata Copper, a mining company, has committed to and the steps it has taken to minimize the release of contaminants in its industrial processes. Third, it explained what Natura cosmetics has done since 2007 to become a “carbon neutral” business by calculating all GHG emissions in the company’s supply chain, transportation, and production of its various cosmetics products, and purchasing the equivalent amount of CO2 tonnage in carbon credits on the international carbon markets.

Although Chile is officially considered an Annex B, “developing” country under the dual classification of the Kyoto Protocol, the smaller country of 16 million inhabitants has been no stranger to addressing the climate change issue in recent years. In addition to private companies’ activities noted above, Chile has also completed some 40 projects via the Kyoto Protocol’s CDM market since 2004. These 40 projects have ranged from landfill methane gas capture, to a nationwide energy efficiency CFL lightbulbs installation project, to agricultural methane capture, and to a wind energy project – yielding a total of US$300 million in traded carbon credits for Chilean enterprises.

Moreover, in early December 2008, President Bachelet, alongside her Environment Minister, unveiled Chile’s official “National Climate Change Action Plan” for 2008-2012. The plan includes activities for

1) studying impacts and vulnerabilities,
2) funding adaptation measures, and
3) strong support for mitigation endeavors, including the creation of a Center for Renewable Energy, establishing an increase of funds for a national energy efficiency program, further studies into harvesting biofuels, and increasing bicycle lanes for transport.

Although, historically, Chile has not contributed much to the total build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – actually 0.2% of total global GHG emissions for the last year tallied, 2004 – the country would like to see itself as a Latin American forerunner on confronting the issue.  President Bachelet’s new Action Plan not only concretely addresses the country’s increasing climate change concerns, but also demonstrates to the international community that Chile, too, is progressive and environmentally conscientious.

However, even with the formidable growth in the renewable energy sector, and a bit less so in CSR and ‘green business strategy,’ in Chile over the past 3-4 years, there is still an internal conflict and complexity as to how the “green” the country is truly progressing. As Mr. Quiroga pointed out at the seminar, Chile’s growth rate of GHG emissions in the past 10 years has been among the highest on the planet, alongside that of China and India. The main culprits for this have been

1) the booming energy intensive mining sector,
2) an increase in automobile use with economic growth, and,
3) an increased reliance on coal in recent years with disruptions in imported gas supplies from Argentina.

One recent study from the University of Chile actually found that Chile’s national GHG footprint is projected to jump 4.2 times its current amount by 2030.  This conclusion assumes the country continues on its current pace and manner of economic development, and with the increased reliance on new coal plants that are currently in different stages of construction.

So, yes, not only are the effects of climate change real in Chile but so too is a growing movement and public consciousness to reduce people’s and companies’ carbon footprints. In addition to Essbio, Xstrata, and Natura, there are other enterprises in Chile making efforts to reduce GHG emissions in their industrial processes or take action in other local environmental issues.  Yet, it is safe to say that such “climate change conscious” companies are still a small minority here in Chile.  And, even though President Bachelet and the Minister of Energy are making genuine, good-faith efforts to bring the latest solar and geothermal energy technology to Chile such as with partnerships with California and the US Department of Energy, the situation of increasing national GHG emissions reveals a deeper complexity we all need to address:

How can a middle-income economy, such as Chile, afford the latest in clean and renewable energy technology to reduce its climate change footprint, while at the same time, continuing to address more pressing needs of economic and social development?

In other words, a country such as Chile still needs to put its food on the table by mining the copper, whether imported gas or a cheaper “clean” energy solution is currently available; and, if they are not available, a bunch of coal will certainly do.

[photo credit: Cheo!]

Related posts:

• Looking for Climate Change Leadership? Try Mexico City
• United States: UN Role in Climate Talks Should be Diminished
• Chile Launches Initiative to Measure Water Footprint of Companies
• Chile: the Windy El Dorado, EWEC, Part IV
• Chilean Hydroelectric Dam Project to be Appealed to Supreme Court