Renew On Line 112 Nov-Dec 2014
G7’s green vision
The
leaders of the G7
group of industrial countries (EU, US, Japan) met in Rome in May to consider an
‘Energy Initiative for Energy Security’, with the Russia-Ukraine crisis in
mind. Their joint statement called for the ‘development of flexible,
transparent and competitive energy markets, including gas markets,
diversification of energy fuels, sources and routes, and encouragement of
indigenous sources of energy supply, reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and
accelerating the transition to a low carbon economy, as a key contribution to
enduring energy security.’
They looked to ‘enhancing energy efficiency in demand and supply, and demand
response management’ and
to ‘promoting deployment of clean and sustainable energy technologies and
continued investment in research and innovation’ including ‘the use of low carbon technologies
(renewable energies, nuclear in the countries which opt to use it, and carbon
capture and storage) including those which work as a base load energy source’.http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-530_en.htm?locale=en
*The 1970s Limits
to Growth study may have
been (nearly) right!
New IEA 2050 scenario
More flesh
was put on it by the International Energy Agency which now says
$44 trillion in investment is needed to secure a global clean-energy system
by 2050.That’s up from its $36 trillion 2012 estimate, this, it
said, illustrating what it’s said for some time: ‘the longer we wait, the
more expensive it becomes to transform our energy system.’ However, this investment would actually save over $115 trillion
cumulatively by then in fuel savings.
The 2014
edition of the IEAs biennial Energy Technology Perspectives includes a
scenario in which the share of electricity of overall energy demand will grow
from 17% in 2011 to between 23% and 26% by 2050. Its ‘2 Degree Scenario’ (2DS),
which is in line with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's analysis,
aims to limit the rise in global temperatures to no more than 2°C. Otherwise it
says we would be headed for 6DS, or 4DS even if the current policy promises are
met. In the enhanced 2DS, the
share of fossil fuels in global primary energy supply drops from 80% in 2011 to
just over 40% in 2050. Energy efficiency, renewables and carbon capture and
storage (CCS) make the largest contributions to global emissions reductions
under the scenario. But, with the prospects for CCS still seen as ‘uncertain’,
the IEA says that fuel switching (coal to gas), and power generation efficiency
(e.g. CHP) are also ‘essential’ to reach the 2DS target cost-efficiently- as is
nuclear. Under the 2DS scenario, 22 GW of new nuclear is added annually by
2050. However, the IEA notes that global nuclear capacity ‘is stagnating at
this time’ and by 2025
will be 5% to 25% below needed levels. It suggests that the high capital and
low running costs of nuclear create the need for policies that provide investor
certainty. That’s code for market support- or in simpler terms, subsidies. By
contrast it says ‘Cost per unit of energy generated by onshore wind and
solar photovoltaic (PV) continued to fall in 2013, albeit at a slower rate than
in previous years. Their cost-competitiveness is improving, in some countries,
partly due to innovative market design’. It notes that, as a result ‘Double-digit growth rates for wind and
solar PV electricity generation over the last several years helped push the
global share of renewables to 20% in 2011; the 2DS shows that renewables could
reach 65% by 2050. In the 2DS-High Renewables Scenario (2DS hi-Ren), solar
becomes the dominant electricity source by 2040, providing 26% of global
generation by 2050’. It
stresses the need for grid balancing and smart grid integration, but sees gas
as just an interim option, unless CCS is developed successfully. www.iea.org/etp/
Also
E&Y says decarbonisation costs will be offset by health and fuel cost savings: www.rtcc.org/2014/06/11/low-carbon-energy-saves-money-in-the-long-run-study/
REN21
renewables review
The annual REN21 review yields this global scoreboard:
Hydro 1000GW, wind 318GW, PV 139GW, Biomass 88GW(e), Solar heating 326GW(th)
REN21’s 2014
report, as ever packed
full of data, notes that hydro rose by 4% to ~1,000 GW, and other renewables
grew nearly 17% to over 1560 GW total. For the first time, the world added more
solar PV than wind capacity; PV and hydro were essentially tied, each
accounting for about one-third of new capacity. PV has continued to expand rapidly, with growth averaging
almost 55% annually over the past 5 years. But wind has added the most capacity
of all renewables over that period. In 2013, renewables overall accounted for
over 56% of net additions to global electric power capacity and much more in
several countries.
Heat from modern biomass, solar, and
geothermal sources has a small but gradually rising share of final global heat
demand, amounting to an estimated 10%. In the heating and cooling sector, REN21
says ‘trends included the increasing use of renewables in combined heat and
power plants; the feeding of renewable heating and cooling into district
systems; hybrid solutions in the building renovation sector; and the growing
use of renewable heat for industrial purposes. The use of modern renewable
technologies for heating and cooling is still limited relative to their vast
potential’.
Leaders At the end
of 2013, REN21 note that China, the US, Brazil, Canada, and Germany remained
the top countries for total installed renewable capacity; the top for non-hydro
capacity were again China, the USA, and Germany, followed by Spain, Italy, and
India. Among the world’s top 20 countries for non-hydro capacity, Denmark had a
clear lead for total capacity per capita. Uruguay, Costa Rica and Mauritius
among the top countries for investment in new renewable power and fuels
relative to annual GDP.
The bottom line
is that renewables supplied around 19% of total world energy used in 2012,
compared with nuclear at 2.6%. In electricity terms they generated 22% of
global electric power, with hydro at 16%, wind at 2.9%. And the contribution can only keep on
rising. www.ren21.net/gsr
But not
everyone agrees!
Energy Security- a GWP report
A Global
Warming Policy Foundation paper says that intermittent wind & solar pose a serious
threat to energy security and UK power supply reliability. Philipp Mueller’s UK
Energy Security: Myth and Reality says that indigenous fossil
supplies (e.g. shale gas and oil) and global markets for fossil fuels, provide
the best security, even given Russia’s intransigence, whereas the grid’s
ability to deal with varying renewables is limited and will get worse if they
grow. It notes that in Germany last Dec, wind & solar were almost zero for over a
week.
So?
For the moment gas and coal plants had to ramp up then more, but increasingly
hydro pumped storage and biogas can help, along with stored wind to gas,
supergrid imports & DSM to time shift peaks. Most of the rest of the time,
wind and PV reduce the need to import and use fossil (+ nuclear) fuels.
www.thegwpf.org/renewable-energy-poses-security-risk-new-paper-warns
The report
says it’s not necessarily a GWPF view!
Also see: http://euanmearns.com/renewable-energy-growth-in-perspective/and
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/opinion/57973
See also
Charles Frank’s analysis
for the Brookings Institute. He says PV & wind aren’t
as cost
effective as CO2 savers as gas, hydro, & nukes www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/05/low-carbon-electricity-technologies-frank For a
rebuttal: www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2014/08/05/sowing-confusion-about-renewable-energy/
See also Cooper’s analysis, with nuclear seen as
very much less attractive: http://216.30.191.148/Cooper%20SMRs%20are%20Part%20of%20the%20Problem,%20Not%20the%20Solution%20FINAL2.pdf
And for a quick strategic
overview: http://bit.ly/1pdCXN0
New 100% renewables scenarios
For a show stopping review of sustainable energy and how to balance
variable renewables, with case studies of the US and Mexico, and staggering
‘100% of all energy by 2050’ renewable scenarios for Korea, Japan and China,
see Bent Sorensen’s excellent new book ‘Energy Intermittency’. A must buy! www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466516069 See also his helpful
new web site: www.secantus.dk
IRENA- 2030
The International
Renewable Energy Agency REMap 2030 report, says that the world could double its renewable energy capacity by 2030, and supply 30% of global energy. Moreover
this will not be costly. Indeed it could save money long term due to reduced
use of expensive fossil fuel. IRENA says that ‘worldwide incremental energy
system costs amount to an average of USD 133 billion annually until 2030, while
average incremental investment needs are around USD 265 billion annually to
2030. Renewable subsidies rise to USD 315 billion in 2030 with the
REmap Options fully deployed, but in some countries, subsidies peak before
2030. In comparison, global subsidies for fossil fuels amounted to USD 544
billion in 2012. Fossil-fuel subsidies will fall when the share of renewable
energy rises.’ And there will be other
benefits: ‘Average health benefits due to the mitigation of air pollution
from fossil-fuel use are in the range of USD 1.9-4.6 per GJ, while carbon
dioxide (CO2) mitigation benefits are in the range of USD 3-12 per GJ. The
total of cost and benefits results in net savings of at least USD 123 billion,
and as high as USD 738 billion by 2030.’
Their
estimates for renewable shares are less than in the scenarios by WWF etc, but
that’s partly because the 30% estimate does not assume major energy savings. If
you do, the share could rise up to 36%. The bottom line though is that many renewables are
now competitive and will boom. And soon, even more so, as their cost continue
to fall.
IRENA REMAP 2030:
For a
good review see: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/remap-2030-launched-roadmap-doubling-renewable-energy-share-2030
|
German renewables boom
Single market soon
Southern
and NW European power grids and exchanges have linked markets to cover about
70% of Europe, bringing it closer to integrated electricity pricing and
reducing risks to supply. The physical and financial integration of the two
regions creates a common day-ahead power market stretching from Portugal to
Finland. That is likely to benefit consumers by enabling power to flow from
cheaper to more costly areas most of the time, with local renewables variations
being better balanced.
www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/13/europe-power-idUSL6N0NZ45P20140513?
German
energy co-ops
In Germany, 942 energy cooperatives were officially
registered by 31st December 2013, with most of them directly involved with
renewable energy generation.
So says ‘The
socio-economic power of renewable energy production cooperatives in Germany:
results of an empirical assessment, from the Wuppertal Institute.
It looks in
detail at their make up and performance, noting that ‘in total, surveyed
renewable energy production cooperatives, for which data is available, unified
around 76,500 actors and had about €693m capital at their disposal by 2012. In
2012, the majority of analysed renewable energy production cooperatives had an
equity share above 30%. Most cooperatives that were registered in 2010 achieved
a return on equity that lay between 1% and 10% and made a profit of between one
and €50,000 two years after their registration. Most capital is invested,
predominantly in energy production technologies.’ It concluded ‘Renewable energy production
cooperatives provide robust organisational structures for diffusing renewable,
regional and decentralised energy production’ adding that ‘cooperatives with a focus on
renewable energy production may have further potential to increase their
socio-economic power’. http://epub.wupperinst.org/frontdoor/index/index/docId/5364
Let’s
hope they, and prosumers, survive the FiT cuts. The IEA’s new Prosumer report is very good: http://iea-retd.org/archives/publications/e-prosumers-report So, more aggressively, is this www.claverton-energy.com/the-death-of-another-beautiful-game.html?
This is also
still worth checking out: http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_04_17_germanys_renewables_revolution
* On a Sunday this May, Germany’s renewables met nearly 75% of overall power demand around midday. In the first quarter of 2014 overall, renewables met a record 27% of the electricity demand, thanks to favorable weather. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/
* On a Sunday this May, Germany’s renewables met nearly 75% of overall power demand around midday. In the first quarter of 2014 overall, renewables met a record 27% of the electricity demand, thanks to favorable weather. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/
French
energy plans
The French national plan (see last Renew) sets a 40% by 2030 renewable electricity goal.
Some of that will
be from offshore wind and tidal sites. As well as on-land wind and PV. But
there are also some inspiring local initiatives. For example, the Perpignan Méditerranée area in France aims to meet all its electricity
needs through local renewables: 75% of the region’s electricity needs are
already met by renewables. It’s following on from the 74 regions and
municipalities in Germany that have already reached 100% renewable status. See
the WFC-led global ‘100%
renewables’ campaign: www.resurgence.org/magazine/article4138-world-future-council.html
Bad news: FiT cuts
The Greek government has proposed cuts
to its successful Feed-in Tariff
to cut
the deficit in the fund it uses to pay for renewable energy incentives. The
so-called ‘New Deal’ will cut FiT
rates not only for new systems, but also for those already in place with
contracts.
It will also retroactively cut the amount due to energy producers for the power they sold in
2013 by up to 20%. Painful. Hard pressed Spain has already cut its FiTs. Germany’s new support system has yet to
have an impact, same for the new French policy, but cuts seem the norm given the rightward
shift. For another example the
Danish climate and energy
minister has warned that the government may drop future offshore wind projects if their power price doesn’t fall.
Better news: EU emissions fall even lower The EU seems set to more than
meet its 2020 climate target (a 20% emission cut/1990) with emissions falling
to the lowest recorded. Since 1990, Germany, the UK and Denmark all made ~25%
cuts, but some new EU countries did even better, Estonia, Latvia. Lithuania and
Romania all reduced emissions by well over 50%. Some of this was due to the
recession, with emissions from road transport continuing to fall (by 4% from
2011-12), and industrial production (by 20%). In energy generation, renewables
will have played their part, although in 2011-12 those gains were wiped out by
increased use of coal in Germany, the UK and Spain (with net sector emissions
rising by 3%), and the rise of consumer energy use (adding 4%), partly due to a
cold winter. www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-union-greenhouse-gas-inventory-2014
Given
the new 30% by 2030 target, the EU must try harder: www.sandbag.org.uk/site_media/pdfs/reports/Europes_failure_to_tackle_coal.pdf
Global roundup
China In addition to shale gas exploration and new nuclear plant construction, a new policy review
says that China aims to enhance energy efficiency and there will be new hydro,
wind and solar projects, plus ultra-high voltage transmission lines. To support
all this China will accelerate the pace of reform of the electricity market ‘to promote direct trading, providing a
more economical, high quality power protection, letting the market play a
decisive role in the allocation of power resources.’ That sounds ominous, judging by UK’s
market led EMR mess. But China has now raised its PV target to 70GW by 2017 (up
from 20GW now). By 2017 it also plans to have150 GW of wind, 11 GW of biomass
and 330 GW of hydro. And a new WWF report says it could get 80% of its
electricity from renewables by 2050, up from about 19% now: http://worldwildlife.org/publications/china-s-future-generation-assessing-the-maximum-potential-for-renewable-power-sources-in-china-to-2050
Japan There are scant details
of the new energy programme, but, while renewables are being pushed, along with
some nuclear restarts, this
rather gloomy report says coal-fired IGCCT is also being pushed: www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-13/post-fukushima-japan-chooses-coal-over-renewable-energy.html But there
are some good local renewable energy projects e.g. www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/05/fukushima-japan-rebuilding-communities-with-solar-commits-to-a-100-percent-renewable-energy-by-2040?
And an ice wall is being built at Fukushima!
Africa Renewables are beginning to take off in North
Africa and are likely to double to 120GW by 2020: www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/03/renewables-in-north-africa-a-nation-by-nation-report-card?cmpid=WNL-Wednesday-March26-2014 And Africa as a whole
has ~100 wind farms, with 4000+ turbines. In all ~12GW is in operation or
planned. PV too:
www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/apr/30/solar-power-green-energy-african-development?
India The Centre for Science & Environment’s ‘Citizen’s
report on the state of Renewable Energy in India’ looks in detail at large and
small scale renewables and policy challenges. It’s hard to get details on what’s
happening in India, so this is well worth the $40 charge: http://csestore.cse.org.in/usd/books/state-of-renewable-energy-in-india-report.html
Ukraine 40% of Ukraine’s
energy is from gas, mostly imported from Russia. Only 2% of it power is
renewable, PV 0.3% (130 MW) wind 0.2% (86 MW). But that could grow 10 fold by
2020, with total new investments of €15 bn, mainly on PV and biomass. www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/04/renewable-energy-may-help-ukraine-abandon-russian-gas? Under new ownership: will Russia restart Crimea's
400MW of wind/pv projects?
USA Obama, bypassing a deadlocked Congress, used his executive authority to release $2bn for
energy-saving at federal government buildings, and new financing and training programmes for PV installations.
Symbolically, the White House now has some solar panels again- those installed
by Carter were removed by Reagan. But it’s taking forever for the US to get offshore wind going. Sadly it has a lead in false starts.14.7
GW of projects have been planned and then abandoned, though
at last some progress has been made: www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/05/doe-picks-winners-for-u-s-offshore-wind-development? Despite vociferous opposition to some New
England projects: www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/05/judge-has-harsh-words-for-cape-wind-foes?
For a good US
energy overview: www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/05/the-time-for-wind-and-solar-energy-is-now? Less good was a
New York Times editorial assertion (1/5/14)
that ‘only Germany succumbed to panic after the Fukushima disaster and began
to phase out all nuclear power in favor of huge investments in renewable
sources like wind and sun’. What of the
post-Fukushima policies in Italy, Belgium, Switzerland? Or Japan? Or Taiwan? http://energytransition.de/2014/05/the-wrong-lessons-at-the-new-york-times/
US
Wind deaths Tragically, 4 people died after their
single-engined plane hit a 1.5MW GE wind turbine in South Dakota. Aircraft collisions with power grid
pylons do happen, but never before with turbines: so far only 146 deaths had
been reported globally due to wind plant operation, installation or maintenance
accidents- none involving the public.
Climate
change- COP 20
The global
negotiations at the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change, continue
with COP20 in Dec. in Peru. A Kyoto II protocol was agreed at an earlier COP,
but it’s not legally binding, with the USA and China not being willing to
accept limits to their growth.
However the USA does now seem serious about reducing
emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed new rules establish mandatory limits on CO2
emissions from existing power plants, cutting them overall by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. Under the rules,
states and power companies will have a range of options to meet the new state
level standards: switching from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas; forming
cap-and-trade markets; expanding renewables such as wind and solar power; or
encouraging customers to use less energy by moving to more efficient heating
and cooling systems and appliances.
But it’s not a done deal: the policy is opposed by climate skeptics and
fossil fuel lobbyist, and even if it goes ahead, with state plans having to be
filed by 2016, they will have up to15 years to fully implement them.
The EPA says the
30% cut goal ‘is achievable because innovations in the production,
distribution and use of electricity are already making the power sector more
efficient and sustainable while maintaining an affordable, reliable and diverse
energy mix. This proposed rule would reinforce and continue this progress’. The EPA says that ‘in 2030, the
significant reductions in the harmful carbon pollution and in other air
pollution, to which this rule would lead, would result in net climate and
health benefits of $48 bn to $82 bn. At the same time, coal and natural gas
would remain the two leading sources of electricity generation in the U.S.,
with each providing more than 30% of the projected generation’.
Given the scale
of extreme weather related damage that has been visited on the US in recent
years, that's not surprising. That can’t necessarily be linked to climate
change, but the White House seems to have shifted near to that position. The
third US National Climate Assessment, commissioned by the White House, says that ‘climate
change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into
the present’, noting that
extreme weather events has increased in the last 50 years, with pro-longed
periods of heat, floods and droughts in some areas. Temperatures may rise 2°F
to 4°F more in most areas of the US in the next few decades, but reductions in
some ‘short-lived human-induced emissions’ could cut some of the projected warming. It warns
that ‘the amount of warming projected beyond the next few decades is
directly linked to the cumulative global emissions of heat-trapping gases and
particles,’ but says ‘there
is still time to act to limit the amount of change and the extent of damaging
impacts’. Sounds good.
But see: http://time.com/2899506/obama-carbon-regulations/
It was also said
that it that China
would set absolute limits, though evidently that’s not a formal policy. But the chair
of China's Advisory Committee on Climate Change said that an absolute cap on
CO2 emissions might come into effect from 2016 (though that was later denied).
China had previously committed to cutting its carbon intensity i.e. CO2 /GNP,
by 40-45% by 2020, compared to 2005 levels, but that would have allowed for
continued growth in absolute emissions. Reuters was told that emissions were likely to peak at
around 11bn tonnes CO2 equivalent, up from 7-9.5bn t CO2e now, by 2030: see
chart below for the growth up to 2012. But even if that was stabilised and
reduced a bit, it’s still way ahead off all others.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/06/09/china-climatechange-idUKL4N0OQ0WB20140609
And Australia & Canada are resisting
change.
COP 20 will be followed by the key COP 21 in Paris in 2015. By then we’ll know if Obama’s plan survived. And the EU! http://unfccc.int/
COP 20 will be followed by the key COP 21 in Paris in 2015. By then we’ll know if Obama’s plan survived. And the EU! http://unfccc.int/
|
|
Hot
particle fears
Marco Kalton, a
US civil engineer at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, says that that his team
found a tiny10 micron particle which is extremely radioactive (40
PBq/g), 460 km from Fukushima, presumably carried there by the
wind. If this is indicative of a more widespread hot particle problem, as some allege, Japan is in deep
trouble. This is also important as it appears to be a fuel particle from one of
the 3 reactors which exploded at Fukushima and may be indicative of a
criticality event (nuclear fission) inside one of the reactors, which, if it
occurred after the plants’ emergency shut down, arguably, radiation impacts
specialist Ian Fairlie says, puts Fukushima into a new more sinister category of
accidents. More at: http://fairewinds.org/hottest-particle/ This issue isn’t covered directly in the
new UNSCEAR report on radiation exposure from the Fukushima disaster, but that does provide collective radiation
dose estimates, from which Dr Fairlie deduced an estimated long-term
cancer death toll of around 5,000,
leaving aside hot particles. WISE NM 785.
But
see: www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/05/04/cancer-and-death-by-radiation-not-from-fukushima/
Return to sender
The fourth and largest shipment so far of high-level n-waste from the UK to Japan
was carried out earlier this year. All such waste, from
reprocessing of Japan’s used
fuel (to extract the plutonium) at THORP at Sellafield,
should be returned to Japan by the end of the decade. Just what they need! It
will be stored at the Rokkasho-Mura
site. The UK will also return vitrified waste to the Netherlands, Germany,
Italy and Switzerland over a 10 year period, in 11 shipments to transfer in
total 1850 canisters.
Are
new reactors safer than old reactors?
It
seems possible that very old reactors are more dangerous. The Fukushima plant
was certainly old-the reactors 1-5 were all started up in the 1970s. The
International Atomic Energy Agency’s 2012 annual Nuclear Safety Review said: ‘There
are growing expectations that older nuclear reactors should meet enhanced
safety objectives, closer to that of recent or future reactor designs.’ It noted that ‘there
is a concern about the ability of the ageing nuclear fleet to fulfill these
expectations’. But very new ones are also risky. Ben Sovacool and Christopher Cooper
noted in a 2008 journal article: ‘The Fermi Unit 1 reactor began commercial
operation in August 1966, but had a partial meltdown only two months after
opening. The St. Laurent des Eaux A1 Reactor in France started in June 1969,
but an online refueling machine malfunctioned and melted 400 pounds of fuel
four months later. The Browns Ferry Unit 1 reactor in Alabama began commercial
operation in August 1974 but experienced a fire severely damaging control
equipment six months later. Three Mile Island Unit 2 began commercial operation
in December 1978 but had a partial meltdown three months after it started.
Chernobyl Unit 4 started up in August 1984, and suffered the worst nuclear
disaster in history on April 26, 1986 before the two-year anniversary of its
operation.’ What about the next Generation 4 reactors? These are totally safe- since
they don’t exist yet! A nuclear industry insider has quipped: ‘We know that
the paper moderated, ink-cooled reactor is the safest of all. All kinds of
unexpected problems may occur after a project has been launched.’ From Nuclear Monitor 782
Sellafield
Ltd is co-operating with
the company running Japan’s Fukushima clean-up operation: ‘There are many similar
challenges that we’ll be facing on our sites over the coming years and we can
share our experiences’.
Let’s hope they didn't mean that literally. There is plenty to do.The fuel
stored at Fukushima unit
4 should soon all be transferred to a central storage pool on the site. But the
melted fuel in the others can’t be touched. It may be 30 years or more before
the site is cleaned up.
US plant worries The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that dozens of US plants that reassessed their vulnerability to quakes in the wake of the meltdowns in Japan are at greater risk than they were originally licensed to withstand. They include the Seabrook coastal plant 56 miles north of Boston. There have been calls for urgent action. But as more US n-plants (maybe a third say some) face the threat of closures due to competition from wind & gas, the industry has fought back via a new lobby group, Nuclear Matters http://safeenergy.org/2014/04/25/the-nuclear-industrys-earth-week
US plant worries The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that dozens of US plants that reassessed their vulnerability to quakes in the wake of the meltdowns in Japan are at greater risk than they were originally licensed to withstand. They include the Seabrook coastal plant 56 miles north of Boston. There have been calls for urgent action. But as more US n-plants (maybe a third say some) face the threat of closures due to competition from wind & gas, the industry has fought back via a new lobby group, Nuclear Matters http://safeenergy.org/2014/04/25/the-nuclear-industrys-earth-week
More
delay The start up of Olkiluoto EPR in Finland has now been put back even
further, to 2018, 13 years after work on it began.
