Tick tock, tick tock… The ticking sound that our friends in Germany might be hearing is the countdown to 2022, the year in which the country has pledged to be completely nuclear free.

Meanwhile, halfway across the globe, Japan is still dealing with the aftermath of the meltdown at its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power facility. The disaster greatly damaged public confidence in the safety of nuclear power, leading many countries to question their own commitment to nuclear power.

As Germany, Japan, and other countries seek to phase out nuclear power, they need to design strategies for filling the “energy gap” created by nuclear power’s absence. Renewable energy sources provide the clearest, cleanest path for filling this gap, and many different forms of renewables currently exist as viable options.

Germany-based TimberTower develops massive, easily assembled wooden towers that can be used as the base for wind turbines, much the way wood was used as the foundation for windmills for many centuries. More flexible, renewable and easier to manufacture and produce than metal turbines, the wooden towers make sense for a forest-rich region.

Clean technology company SunPods Inc.—headquartered in San Jose, Calif.—designs and manufactures modular solar array units that help make solar power more accessible and affordable. Unlike conventional customized ground-mounted solar arrays that require extensive onsite assembly and construction, SunPods (which stands for “Sun Power on Demand”) are configured and built in a factory before being delivered to virtually any site — a process that reduces installation time by up to 85 percent, allowing sunny regions to readily harvest the solar power available to them.

Tidal power presents another option for renewable energy for countries with available coastline. IT Power—based in Bristol, UK—is developing an innovative tidal energy device that uses oscillating horizontal hydrofoils instead of traditional rotating blades to generate renewable energy. This pioneering approach offers many advantages over existing tidal stream technology by maximizing the area that can be swept—and hence the power captured—in a given depth of water.

Wind, solar, tidal power, and other renewables all have a role to play in helping countries seeking to move away from nuclear achieve their energy goals. How these countries fill “the energy gap” will be a bellwether for others working to diversify their energy mix.

Susan Gladwin leads the Autodesk Clean Tech Partner Program, which provides emerging clean tech companies powerful software and opportunities to help them develop solutions that address our most pressing environmental issues. In North America, Europe, Japan and Singapore, the Autodesk Clean Tech Partner Program offers $150,000 of Autodesk software for $50.

Related posts:

• Countries Shelve Nuclear Plans In Wake Of Accident
• France Invests €1B in Nuclear, Saying Moratorium ‘Makes No Sense’
• Nukes or Fossil Fuels? Germany Rejects False Choice
• Long-Term Renewable Energy Targets Must Be Set Now, Experts Say
• Germany Plans to Shut Down All of its Nuclear Reactors by 2022

In front of a packed house of dignitaries, delegates and energy industry leaders assembled for the 2012 World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Korean Prime Minister Kim Hwang-sik each independently reaffirmed their country’s commitment to nuclear power as an essential part of a low carbon future. Speaking at the opening ceremony of the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi on Monday morning, the two leaders outlined their country’s clean energy and energy efficiency accomplishments over the last several years, and outlined the framework for transitioning to a low carbon energy economy in the years to come.

“We will gradually change the current energy mix dominated by coal,” Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said at the opening session of the 2012 World Future Energy Summit, by raising the output of “natural gas, renewable energy and nuclear energy,” referring to nuclear as “safe, reliable and technologically mature.”

Premier Wen outlined a long list of Chinese accomplishments in renewable energy and energy efficiency, capping them off by reporting that China now gets 11% of its electricity from renewable energy.

But Premier Wen underscored that the transition to clean energy would not be sudden. “Fossil fuels will continue for a long time,” Wen told conference attendees. “So we need to follow a low-carbon approach to carbon-intense technologies,” Wen said.

Premier Wen was not alone in committing to nuclear energy in the long term. In the second keynote address at the opening session of the 2012 WFES, Korean Prime Minister Kim Hwang-sik told conferees that “To accelerate the worldwide spread of renewable energy and for it to replace fossil fuels we must promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy.”

The message from Prime Minister Kim was very clear: climate change is a serious issue that poses a threat to people all over the planet. “Humanity faces a serious challenge with global climate change,” Kim said.

And if you take Prime Minister Kim’s words at face value, his government is backing up their clean energy talk with clean energy action. According to Kim, the “green government has invested 2% of GDP [gross domestic product] in renewable energy and clean technologies and has set a goal to be the worlds fifth largest clean energy economy.”

Wrapping up the morning’s powerhouse session of Asian leaders, UN Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon praised the promise of “sustainable energy,” demanding that “energy poverty must end.”

“It is not acceptable that 3 billion people have to rely on wood, coal and charcoal and animal waste for cooking and heating,” said the Secretary General.

Article by Timothy Hurst, appearing courtesy ecopolitology.

Tim Hurst’s travel expenses to the 2012 World Future Energy Summit were covered by Masdar.

Related posts:

• South Korea, Malaysia Discuss Nuclear Energy Cooperation
• North Korean Leader Supports Russian Natgas Pipeline to South Korea
• South Korea Seeking Rare Earth Concessions in South Africa
• Thailand and South Korea Announce Huge Renewable Energy Projects
• South Korea Aims to Produce 1 Million Electric Cars by 2020

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 138 page document has been released by the New Jersey Governor’s Office that is a master plan on energy for the state. This final version is largely the same as the draft document released last summer, save for a few changes. It lays out the direction for how the state will meet its energy demands over the next decade. The point that stands out is the goal for renewable energy, which has been lowered to 22.5 percent by 2021 as compared to the goal of 30 percent by the previous administration. The plan sets an overall goal of obtaining 70 percent of electricity from clean energy sources by 2050, which would include nuclear, natural gas, and hydroelectric.

The master plan contains five overarching goals that the state would pursue:

1. Lowering costs to all energy consumers
2. Encourage diversity of clean energy sources within the state
3. Reward energy efficiency and conservation, and reduce peak demand
4. Encourage investments in emerging technologies for transportation and power production
5. Continue to work towards the renewable energy goal of 22.5% by 2021

The Governor emphasized that continued use of coal, which is a major source of greenhouse gases, is no longer acceptable as a new source of power in the state. NJ will work to shut down the older, dirtier plants.

However, Christie also lists the challenges inherent with clean energy sources. Solar PV power is erratic and more costly than traditional sources. While the state has high-quality offshore wind sources, they too can be erratic and more expensive. Nuclear power is also carbon free, but has its own problems including expensive construction costs, nuclear waste, and safety concerns with the public.

New Jersey could import wind power from across state lines to meet their energy goal, but that would also raise concerns. For example, it would create more of a dependence to out-of-state sources, the same issues with reliability would be present, and new high voltage transmission lines would have to be sited.

On the horizon for the state is the closure of a major source of nuclear power in 2019, the 654 megawatt Oyster Creek plant. The governor gave no indication as to if the plant would be replaced. He stated that the construction of another nuclear plant within the decade is unlikely, but that NJ should definitely not abandon nuclear power altogether.

New Jersey faces many of the same challenges as other states in the northeast. It must balance affordable energy with the desire for more renewables and keeping energy jobs within the state.

The master plan is not without its detractors. Many Democrats and environmentalists are not satisfied, calling it shortsighted for its lower renewable energy goal. They also chafe at Governor Christie’s decision to withdraw from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the regional trading system that provides funding for clean energy investments.

In all, the master plan lays out some very good ideas that are very agreeable. Time will tell if politics and economics interfere with making New Jersey’s energy master plan into a reality.

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

Related posts:

• Pennsylvania GOP Rejects Natural Gas Tax Plan
• World’s Biggest Solar Park Set for Sunny South Africa
• Wisconsin Stalemate Imperils Transit Funding
• Governor Cuomo Gets Serious about Solar
• California Governor Jerry Brown Urges Action on Clean Energy

The good news is that on 8 November the International Energy Agency released its 2011 “World Energy Outlook.”

While it will cheer nuclear advocates, overall the report makes for grim reading.

Pulling no punches, the report states at the outset, “There are few signs that the urgently needed change in direction in global energy trends is underway.”

Stripped of its cautious language, the IEA report essentially noted that should present trends continue, the world’s governments through a lack of progressive initiative embracing alternative energy sources would continue to rely on ‘tried and true” fossil fuels, resulting in increased pollution, more fossil-fuel dependency and increasingly upward energy prices.

For environmentalists, this is all good news, but the report contained a caveat virtually anathema to all green movements, that accordingly, governments should reconsider their reluctance to embrace nuclear power, as it does not generate greenhouse gases.

Like many discussions in Western economies since 2008, when the global recession first began to draw blood, the issue of reliable energy production ultimately devolves down to dollars and cents issues.

The grim reality for environmentalists is that no single renewable energy resource, from wind power to solar energy through biofuels, has remotely become competitive with kilowatt hours of electrical energy generated by coal or oil-fired power plants. The debate pits those opposed to a transition to greener technologies to those considering the bottom line, despite greenhouse gas emissions.

Even worse for the environmentalists, the IEA report advocates that as a short-term solution, governments ought to reconsider nuclear power, as it produces zero CO2 emissions. Projecting into the future the report notes, “A low-nuclear future would also boost demand for fossil fuels: the increase in global coal demand is equal to twice the level of Australia’s current steam coal exports and the rise in gas demand is equivalent to two-thirds of Russia’s current natural gas exports. The net result would be to put additional upward pressure on energy prices, raise additional concerns about energy security and make it harder and more expensive to combat climate change. The consequences would be particularly severe for those countries with limited indigenous energy resources which have been planning to rely relatively heavily on nuclear power”

But while sketching out a bleak scenario should governments remain largely disengaged to the larger issues involved in energy production, the IEA report nevertheless ends on a cautiously optimistic note, with its authors concluding, “International concern about the issue of energy access is growing. The United Nations has declared 2012 to be the ‘International Year of Sustainable Energy for All’ and the Rio+20 Summit represents an important opportunity for action. More finance, from many sources and in many forms, is needed to provide modern energy for all, with solutions matched to the particular challenges, risks and returns of each category of project. Private sector investment needs to grow the most, but this will not happen unless national governments adopt strong governance and regulatory frameworks and invest in capacity building. The public sector, including donors, needs to use its tools to leverage greater private sector investment where the commercial case would otherwise be marginal. Universal access by 2030 would increase global demand for fossil fuels and related CO2 emissions by less than 1%, a trivial amount in relation to the contribution made to human development and welfare.”

Accordingly, what is most notable about the IEA report is two things.

First, energy options beyond dependence on traditional fossil fuels such as coal and oil not only exist, but are available in significant amounts to make a serious contribution.

Secondly, as Germany’s experience in weaning itself off nuclear energy is showing, the alternatives are more expensive than current power production modes.

According to the IEA’s scenarios then, the issue of global power production over the next two-three decades devolves upon two major issues.

The first is cost, which will undoubtedly be an uphill struggle for many governments seeking to meet the population’s rising energy demands, who will be loathe to endure increasing energy bills.

The second consideration is the contentious issue of global warming, and the impact of traditional fossil fuel-fired power plants belching vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

While even the most diehard proponents of traditional power plant electrical generation to not deny that their facilities emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide, they denigrate the concerns of environmentalists as ‘fuzzy science.”

So, at the end of the day, the two fundamental issues facing the world’s nations seeking to satiate their population’s demand for reliable and inexpensive power devolve down to cost and scientific projections. We’ll leave the final word to the IEA, which laid out three scenarios, ranging from best- to worst-case – “The wide difference in outcomes between these three scenarios underlines the critical role of governments to define the objectives and implement the policies necessary to shape our energy future.” Accordingly, the major question is whether global governments will have both the cash and political will “to shape our energy future” to the best possible ends.

Article by John C.K. Daly, appearing courtesy Oilprice.com.

Related posts:

• Renewables Provide Greater Share of U.S. Power Than Nuclear
• Is Belgium the Next Country to Switch Off Nuclear Power?
• Smaller Nuclear Reactors Recommended as Good Option for U.S.
• Japan Signals Move Towards Renewable Energy
• Countries Shelve Nuclear Plans In Wake Of Accident

“Nuclear power is safe and nuclear power is clean and nuclear power is renewable.”– President George W. Bush, September 4, 2006[1]

Since the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear disaster, politicians, business executives and investors around the world have cooled on the prospects of nuclear energy. Last month, Siemens AG, the German technology giant that had been involved in the nuclear sector for decades, announced that it was abandoning its nuclear business and would be ramping up its work in renewable energy. “The chapter is closed for us,” CEO Peter Löscher told the German news magazine Spiegel. “We will no longer be involved in managing the building or financing of nuclear plants,” said Löscher, who expressed confidence that Germany would achieve its goal of generating 35 percent of its energy through natural energy sources by 2020.[2]

PHASING OUT NUCLEAR POWER

The announcement followed an endorsement in May by German chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition to approve a landmark plan to shut down all nuclear power plants by 2022, which would bring an end to an industry that provides the nation with a quarter of its energy. “We believe we as a country can be a trailblazer for a new age of renewable energy sources,” said Merkel. “We can be the first major industrialised country that achieves the transition to renewable energy with all the opportunities — for exports, development, technology, jobs — it carries with it.”[3]

Just a few days before Germany’s announcement, Switzerland announced it too would be phasing out of nuclear energy, abandoning plans to build new reactors with a full exit by 2034. The long phase-out will allow ample time to find a suitable replacement for the energy produced by its five reactors, which supplies the country with 40 percent of its power.[4]

“Many environmental groups are fundamentally opposed to the notion that nuclear power is a renewable form of energy — on the grounds that it produces harmful waste byproducts and relies on extractive industries to procure fuel like uranium,” writes James Kanter on the enviroment blog of The New York Times. “Even so, the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear officials from countries including France have been trying to brand the technology as renewable, on the grounds that it produces little or no greenhouse gases. Branding nuclear as renewable could also enable nuclear operators to benefit from some of the same subsidies and friendly policies offered to clean energies like wind, solar and biomass.”[5]

A BIG BID GIVES NUCLEAR ENERGY A BOOST, FOR NOW

But as Kanter noted, the nuclear industry was dealt a blow in 2009 when Hlne Pelosse, who was the interim director general of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) at the time, told Reuters that the agency, which advises 148 member countries and the European Union on renewable energy policy, “will not support nuclear energy programs because it’s a long, complicated process, it produces waste and is relatively risky.” Pelosse made it clear that she doesn’t consider nuclear energy to be renewable, saying that “renewable energy is a better alternative and a faster, less expensive alternative, especially with countries blessed with so much sun for solar plants.”[6]

Mark Cooper, Senior Research Fellow for Economic Analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, said that following the Fukushima meltdown, investors consider nuclear power 25 percent less attractive.[7] Indeed, nuclear stocks took a severe beating after the disaster, with some companies experiencing more than 20 percent in losses[8]). Still, the current overall state of the nuclear sector looks relatively stable, at least for now. Germany’s phase-out will take more than a decade. Cameco Corp., the world’s biggest producer of uranium, for example, recently made a USD 530 million bid to acquire Hathor Exploration Ltd., a Canadian-based uranium exploration company. Bloomberg News said that the deal “is showing that the nuclear future is now.”[9]

JAPAN’S ATOMIC BOMB SURVIVORS: END NUCLEAR POWER

In July, the Hidanko, the group that represents the some 50,000 living survivors of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, made its first-ever appeal for Japan to end civilian nuclear power, calling for an end to the construction of new plants and a phasing out of the nations 54 reactors. Considering their personal experiences during the WWII atomic bombings, the Hidanko wields a particular authority on the subject on nuclear power.

“The bureaucracy, industry and the media were able to shut our eyes to the danger of nuclear power,” said Hirotami Yamada, the secretary general of the Nagasaki chapter of Hidankyo. “They convinced us that nuclear power was different from nuclear bombs,” the 80-year-old Yamada, who was in his teens when Nagasaki was bombed, told The New York Times. “Fukushima showed us that they are not so different.”[10]

###

NOTES

[1] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/sep/4/20060904-113630-1062r/
[2] http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,787020,00.html
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13597627
[4] http://web2.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/110525/switzerland-nuclear-energy-phase-out
[5] http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/is-nuclear-power-renewable/
[6] http://www.tradearabia.com/news/ogn_165107.html
[7] http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/01/us-investing-nuclear-idUSTRE7300DR20110401
[8] http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2011/03/14/uranium-and-nuclear-stocks-feel-the-shock-waves-of-fukushima-meltdown/
[9] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-05/uranium-takeover-at-40-premium-shows-nuclear-future.html
[10] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/world/asia/07hiroshima.html

Article by Reynard Loki, appearing courtesy 3BL Media.

image: Chernobyl nuclear power plant, October 29, 2007 (credit: Mond, Wikimedia Commons)

Related posts:

• France Invests €1B in Nuclear, Saying Moratorium ‘Makes No Sense’
• Countries Shelve Nuclear Plans In Wake Of Accident
• Could Thorium Be The Key To Safer Nuclear Power?
• Germany Plans to Shut Down All of its Nuclear Reactors by 2022
• Is Belgium the Next Country to Switch Off Nuclear Power?

An attempt to build the first brand-new nuclear power plant in a generation has taken a step forward now that staff at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says plans to build new reactors in Georgia meet safety requirements. The federal regulators issued two related safety reports Friday that cleared the design of Westinghouse Electric Co.’s AP1000 nuclear reactor and plans by the Atlanta-based Southern Co. to build two of those reactors at Plant Vogtle near Augusta. The NRC’s commissioners must still decide whether to give final approval to the reactor design and its construction in Georgia. It’s been more than 20 years since the last commercial energy reactor was constructed in the U.S.

Proponents of the AP1000 say it would be safer during a prolonged power outage than the country’s existing 104 commercial reactors because the AP1000 relies on gravity and evaporation to run its emergency cooling systems, not electricity. A March 11 earthquake and tsunami that knocked out emergency power at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant in Japan led to reactor meltdowns, explosions and radiation releases.

During an accident at an AP1000 reactor, emergency cooling water would be released from a large tank atop a 10-story-high shield building and fall onto a steel shell that surrounds a vessel containing highly radioactive nuclear fuel and other vital equipment.

While the AP-1000 could become the fourth approved model, only two are current designs. General Electric’s Advanced Boiling Water Reactor, or A.B.W.R., approved in May 1997, is available to the industry. The two others that have been approved are no longer considered current: the AP-600, a Westinghouse offering in the 1990’s that no one built but received regulatory approval in December 1999, and the System 80+, based on a design by Combustion Engineering, a company later absorbed by competitors that was approved in May 1997.

There are still opponents, and they may still seek to delay approval. They usually argue that some part of the design is not safe enough or even argue that no nuclear design can be safe.

Nuclear power is the primary source of electric power in France. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out of the country’s total production of 540.6 TWh of electricity was from nuclear power (78.8%), the highest percentage in the world.

France is also the world’s largest net exporter of electric power, exporting 18% of its total production (about 100 TWh) to Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Britain, and Germany, and its electricity cost is among the lowest in Europe. France’s nuclear power industry has been called a success story that has put the nation ahead of the world in terms of providing cheap, CO2-free energy. However, France’s nuclear reactors are mainly used in load-following mode and some reactors close on weekends because there is no market for the electricity. This means that the capacity factor is low by world standards, which is not an ideal economic situation for nuclear plants.

So nuclear power does have its advantages.

Article by Andy Soos, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• Smaller Nuclear Reactors Recommended as Good Option for U.S.
• France Invests €1B in Nuclear, Saying Moratorium ‘Makes No Sense’
• Russia Builds Floating Nuclear Plant – Is This Safe?
• Is Belgium the Next Country to Switch Off Nuclear Power?
• Germany Plans to Shut Down All of its Nuclear Reactors by 2022

Germany has been a leading light in sustainability for many years.

More recently, the country once again showed its leadership in the sector by ditching nuclear power and veering towards alternative energy, unmistakably and inexorably.

A new study by the Fraunhofer Energy Alliance, an organization that researches clean energy, confirms that German is on the right path. It says a transition to renewable energy pays off in the years to come, raising the gross national product (GNP) in the next decade and creates new jobs.

According to a release published by Science Daily, Europe’s renewable energy sector will be employing around 2.8 million people by 2020. “The negative impact of a shift to alternative energy is far outweighed by the remaining positive net effect of some 400,000 additional jobs in the EU as a whole. What is more, Europe’s GDP is expected to grow by 0.24 % (some 35 billion Euro)”, it says.

The study makes a compelling case for renewable energy a way to secure our energy future and protect the environment. It also makes convincing predictions for its long-term economic feasibility. It does acknowledge the challenge ahead but reinforces it will pay off in the long term.

Special focus is placed on solar power and wind power. It says that by 2016, solar power generation could be costing around 16 and 20 cents per kilowatt hour. A recent study found that in 2010 newly installed solar photovoltaic (solar PV) projects in California were paid an average of approximately $0.34/kWh, or almost twice as much as the projection estimates the cost will be in half a decade.

Wind also gets some special attention. It already is relatively inexpensive and in some cases costs 5 and 9 to cents per kilowatt hour. Germany has huge amounts of land that could be used to supply more than half of its energy needs, or 390 terawatt hours of a total generation of 600 terawatt hours.

The report highlights that a decentralized energy system based on renewable energy coming from a large number of sources will require a different grid structure than the ones currently available. Intermittency will have to be compensated for with “quick intermediate energy supplies and control plants.”

Article by Antonio Pasolini, a Brazilian writer and video art curator based in London, UK. He holds a BA in journalism and an MA in film and television.

Related posts:

• Website Promotes Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
• UN’s IPCC Releases 900-Page Renewable Energy “Bible”
• Farmers Grow Renewable Energy, Reap Benefits
• German, Japanese Banks to Offer $630 Million in Renewable Energy Loans to India
• Small Scale Renewable Energy Hits the Big Time in the UK

South Korea’s presidential office said in a press release that South Korean President Lee Myung-bak during a two-day state visit by Malaysian King Mizan Zainal Abidin discussed enhancing cooperation between the two countries in nuclear energy and other economic fields.

Reporting on the bilateral discussions, a presidential official quoted President Lee as saying, “Malaysia has recently successfully overcome the global economic crisis, demonstrating a high level of national competitiveness,” Yonhap news agency reported.

South Korea has been intensifying its efforts to export nuclear power plants since South Korean firms in 2009 were awarded a $18.6 billion contract to build four atomic power plants in the United Arab Emirates after besting U.S., Japanese and French companies bidding for the contracts.

In response, the Malaysian monarch stated that he hoped that bilateral cooperation between the two countries could be expanded beyond its immediate parameters to include such promising new fields as renewable energy and green technologies.

South Korea is seeking to expand its civilian nuclear options, as last week South Korean and U.S. envoys met for a third set of discussions on South Korea’s interest in broadening the scope of nuclear activities it is permitted to conduct through a new bilateral nuclear cooperation deal, expanding the parameters of talks that began last March.

The U.S.-South Korean pact on civilian nuclear energy is due to lapse in 2014, four decades after it was signed. Its terms bar South Korea from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, but Seoul wants any new treaty to permit byproprocessing, a next-generation reprocessing technique which reportedly poses fewer proliferation risks.

Article by Charles Kennedy, appearing courtesy OilPrice.com

Related posts:

• South Korea Seeking Rare Earth Concessions in South Africa
• North Korean Leader Supports Russian Natgas Pipeline to South Korea
• South Korea Aims to Produce 1 Million Electric Cars by 2020
• Thailand and South Korea Announce Huge Renewable Energy Projects
• South Korea to Build Massive Offshore Wind Farm

Abu Dhabi is commissioning a new set of nuclear plants for the first time in 2018, that will generate 25% of its power. I find this a bit hard to understand, since it’s happening just as countries like Germany and Italy are decommissioning their nuclear power. Also, Abu Dhabi has huge peaks; their ratio of peak to average load is one of the largest on Earth, due largely to air conditioning, which represents 85% of load — even more surprising for a country that has huge energy needs for water desalination and the petrochemical industry.

Making matters worse, they don’t seem to be able to handling these peak loads too elegantly. It’s not uncommon for transformers to burst into flame, turning people out into the streets to sleep where it’s much cooler when the A/C goes out. This, in turn, negatively affects production, when people can’t get a good night’s sleep.

Holy cow.

So, I asked the speaker: “Why on Earth do they want nuclear (that doesn’t scale up and down according to load)?”

“They like ‘big,’” he answered. “They want to make one deal and have a solution – large enough to make it possible for them to crank up their air conditioning so they can show off their furs.”

Wow. I thought we had idiotic extravagances here. It’s quite a world.

Related posts:

• UK Approves Construction of 10 New Nuclear Power Stations
• Stewart Brand Raising Eyebrows in Supporting Nuclear Power
• Abu Dhabi Moves Ahead on Big Carbon Capture Project
• Green City Project Masdar’s Fate May Hinge on Dubai Debt
• China, South Korea Affirm Commitment to Nuclear at Energy Summit