 |
| The fastest and cheapest ways to reduce carbon emissions are more renewables and energy efficiency. This city in Japan shows points the path… |
The Environmental Protection Agency’s long-awaited proposed rules to attain carbon emission reductions from existing power plants was released today.
We’ve noticed some environmental groups already have sent out mass e-mails urging their members to support the proposal. Not so fast. Very few government rule proposals deserve unqualified support and this proposal is no exception.
Indeed, its 645-page text includes some–although oddly worded and wholly unnecessary–support for nuclear power. The support is not only unnecessary, it would be counterproductive to building a clean, carbon-free energy system.
The EPA appears concerned that some uneconomic, aging reactors will close during the next few years–as we’ve been arguing they will and should for months. So the EPA came up with the idea of allowing states to partially subsidize these reactors. As worded, it seems that EPA would encourage ratepayer subsidies to support six percent of a state’s existing nuclear generating capacity. That’s a strange formulation and is based on the notion that about six percent of the nation’s nuclear capacity is uneconomic and thus subject to early shutdown. But the concept doesn’t necessarily work well on a state-by-state basis, so it’s not clear that this would really be helpful to the industry. And it’s probably less helpful than EPA appeared willing to support in some earlier drafts of the proposed rules.
However, since the proposal is so poorly worded, it is possible EPA means that subsidies should be allowed for all nuclear capacity in order to save the six percent it thinks might close otherwise. That certainly would be an unwarranted and very costly subsidy for ratepayers. The lawyers are looking into this and we’ll let you know what they conclude…
The nuclear industry seemed relatively pleased, although not exuberant, with the proposal, which leaves implementation of carbon reduction goals mostly up to the states. Nuclear Energy Institute CEO Marvin Fertel told Greenwire that the next push for the industry at the state level will be to add nuclear power to existing state Renewable Energy Standards, “We have a bunch of states that have renewable portfolio standards; we think you ought to be basically looking at in the state maybe a clean energy standard … and you should be including nuclear as a part of that,” Fertel said.
We’ve been saying here for several weeks that the state implementation plans for carbon reductions will be the next key nuclear battleground, and the proposed rule makes clear that will be the case...
more: EPA’s proposed carbon rules provide subsidies to uneconomic, aging, dangerous nuclear reactors | GreenWorld
GreenWorld is published by Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS,http://www.nirs.org).
PETITION
"While I support your efforts to address global warming, costly consumer subsidies for old, uneconomic nuclear reactors and new nuclear power must be removed from your climate plan. These reactors can and should be replaced with clean renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Why is this important?
"Nuclear power is not only ineffective at addressing global warming, by misdirecting money better spent on clean renewable and energy efficiency resources, it is actually counterproductive.
"But that’s not nuclear’s only drawback in addressing our climate crisis. As NIRS’ new fact sheet on nuclear power and climate indicates, new nuclear power would be too slow, cost too much, create too much radioactive waste, pose too much threat of nuclear disaster, and produce both too much plutonium and even carbon to be useful as a climate strategy. Meanwhile, the costs of clean renewable energy are plummeting and capacity is skyrocketing, making renewables the clear choice to replace both polluting nuclear and fossil fuel plants.
"Yet the EPA’s carbon reduction proposal released June 2 would encourage ratepayer subsidies to keep uneconomic, aging and dangerous nuclear reactors that otherwise would close operating indefinitely. The proposal also would encourage more construction of extraordinarily expensive new reactors. Both of these steps would have the effect of deterring deployment of 21st century energy technologies, including solar, wind, geothermal, advanced energy efficiency, distributed generation, smart grids and other clean energy programs.
"Tell President Obama that the nuclear provisions in the Administration’s carbon reduction plan must be removed and clean energy must be supported if we are to effectively address global warming."Why is this important?
"Nuclear power is not only ineffective at addressing global warming, by misdirecting money better spent on clean renewable and energy efficiency resources, it is actually counterproductive.
"But that’s not nuclear’s only drawback in addressing our climate crisis. As NIRS’ new fact sheet on nuclear power and climate indicates, new nuclear power would be too slow, cost too much, create too much radioactive waste, pose too much threat of nuclear disaster, and produce both too much plutonium and even carbon to be useful as a climate strategy. Meanwhile, the costs of clean renewable energy are plummeting and capacity is skyrocketing, making renewables the clear choice to replace both polluting nuclear and fossil fuel plants.
"Yet the EPA’s carbon reduction proposal released June 2 would encourage ratepayer subsidies to keep uneconomic, aging and dangerous nuclear reactors that otherwise would close operating indefinitely. The proposal also would encourage more construction of extraordinarily expensive new reactors. Both of these steps would have the effect of deterring deployment of 21st century energy technologies, including solar, wind, geothermal, advanced energy efficiency, distributed generation, smart grids and other clean energy programs.
"Tell President Obama that the nuclear provisions in the Administration’s carbon reduction plan must be removed and clean energy must be supported if we are to effectively address global warming."
Take nuclear subsidies out of EPA carbon rules | CREDO Mobilize: new nuclear power would be too slow, cost too much, create too much radioactive waste, pose too much threat of nuclear disaster, and produce both too much plutonium and even carbon to be useful as a climate strategy. Meanwhile, the costs of clean renewable energy are plummeting and capacity is skyrocketing, making renewables the clear choice to replace both polluting nuclear and fossil fuel plants. Yet the EPA’s carbon reduction proposal released June 2 would encourage ratepayer subsidies to keep uneconomic, aging and dangerous nuclear reactors that otherwise would close operating indefinitely. The proposal also would encourage more construction of extraordinarily expensive new reactors. Both of these steps would have the effect of deterring deployment of 21st century energy technologies, including solar, wind, geothermal, advanced energy efficiency, distributed generation, smart grids and other clean energy programs. Tell President Obama that the nuclear provisions in the Administration’s carbon reduction plan must be removed and clean energy must be supported if we are to effectively address global warming.
FACT SHEET :: NUCLEAR POWER AND CLIMATE: WHY NUKES CAN'T SAVE THE PLANET
see also
whats up: #BustTheMyth
you can't nuke global warming!
No comments:
Post a Comment