Re: US lawmaker, environmentalist spar over nuclear power

["Glenn Marshall" <GMARSHALL@bcp.gtsduratek.com>]

Sandy, evidently Europe's green brigade is faced with a similar dilemma.  (The below article is from "The Guardian")  After decades of fighting nuclear power and chaining themselves to the fences, how now do they admit that maybe, just maybe, it aint so bad after all.  

85 N-plants 'needed to meet CO2 target' 

Britain's nuclear industry: special report 

Paul Brown, Environment Correspondent 
Monday April 10, 2000 

At least 85 nuclear power stations must be built in Europe - including four in Britain - over the next 20 years if targets on emissions of carbon dioxide are to be met, according to a European Commission report. 
The EU is committed to carbon dioxide reductions of 8% by 2010 and they are expected to be reduced further after that date in order to combat the threat of global warming - but as nuclear power is phased out, this will become increasingly difficult. 
The report compiled by the London-based consultancy ERM Energy so alarmed the EC's energy and transport directorate at first that it was kept confidential but now officials have decided it should be released shortly to "stimulate debate" on the future of electricity generation in Europe. 
Although the report 
Although the report concludes it is "highly unlikely" that the public will accept new nuclear stations being built in Europe, it says that without them legally binding targets to reduce emissions will be very difficult to maintain. 
Electricity generation produces one third of all carbon emissions in Europe but nuclear power produces none. However, it is extremely expensive, according to the report, and has the side effect of producing nuclear waste and large quantities of plutonium which is a security threat. 
The alternative energy sources which produce no carbon dioxide - renewable sources like solar and wind power, biogas from landfills, and crops to burn in power stations - are being developed too slowly. In some countries, notably the UK, there is great potential for these alternatives but lack of political will to harness them means they are unlikely to fill the gap. 
The report says that despite increasing public and political opposition to nuclear power, particularly in Germany, it is important to keep them in production to meet the Kyoto target for the EU of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 8% by 2010. 
Most nuclear stations were designed for 25 to 30 years but the report says they should be retained for 40 years. Some in Britain have already been given licences to run for 45 years. 
Europe can meet its 8% reduction target on 1990 levels by 2010 by keeping existing nuclear stations open and continuing the switch from coal generation of electricity to gas. Modern gas stations produce half the carbon dioxide of older coal plants to provide the same amount of power. 
After 2010, as nuclear stations are switched off and electricity demands rise, targets will not be met, says the report. The options to switch to gas will have mostly run out and renewables will not be able to meet the shortfall. 
In 1995, the base year for the report, 23% of the EU's power came from nuclear sources. By 2025, without building any new nuclear plant, but keeping existing stations going, the nuclear share will have dropped to 9%. By shutting stations earlier as Germany and Sweden wish to do, the nuclear share would drop to 1%, the report says. 
The UK produces around 20% of its power from nuclear stations now; and this will drop to 7% in 25 years. Four new stations the size of Sizewell B in Essex at 1,200 megawatts would be needed to make up the shortfall but the electricity would be too expensive. 
If no nuclear power stations are built, then the targets would be exceeded by 15% in 2025. 




>>> sandyfl@earthlink.net 04/14 10:42 AM >>>
US lawmaker, environmentalist spar over nuclear power
  
WASHINGTON, April 13 (Reuters) - Does nuclear power have a future? 

That question was at the heart of a brief verbal exchange on Thursday 
between Alaska Senator Frank Murkowksi and an environmentalist 
testifying before the lawmaker. 

Murkowski, the Republican chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, pressed Alan Nogee, energy program director for 
the Union of Concerned Scientists, for answers about his group's 
thoughts on nuclear as a clean source of power in a nation 
increasingly worried about global warming. 

Nogee said while nuclear is certainly free of "certain emissions," it 
poses other problems, like what to do with the thousands of tons of 
radioactive waste generated from the nation's 103 commercial power 
plants. 

He also said there are safety risks with nuclear plants. 

Murkowski injected that nuclear "has no emissions," a point made 
often in radio advertisements by the nuclear power industry in the 
Washington D.C. area. 

Many proponents for taking action against global warming want America 
to ratify the Kyoto treaty, which aims to cut emissions in 
industrialized countries from fossil fuels, like oil and coal. At the 
same time, the environmental movement swears off in advocating 
nuclear power as a replacement fuel. 

Nogee said his group has no problem with economically viable nuclear 
power plants remaining open, but objects to giving operators 
subsidies to keep them in business. 

"Nuclear power should stand or fall on its own," Nogee said, noting 
the industry is "very mature." 

Murkowski immediately brought up the fact President Clinton is 
threatening to veto legislation passed recently by the Senate and 
House to cure the waste problem. That bill would relocate spent 
nuclear fuel from the 103 plants to a centralized dump in the Nevada 
desert by decade's end. 

Nogee said the Union of Concerned Scientists had nothing to say on 
that immediate matter. 

Clinton objects to environmental oversight provisions in the waste 
bill, having pushed for years that the Environmental Protection 
Agency have the sole authority over radiation exposure standards at 
the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. 

Nuclear power generates nearly 20 percent of the nation's electricity 
needs. Scores of plants will see their original operating licenses 
expire next decade, but some owners have already sought 20-year 
extensions from the government. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in March broke new ground by 
approving the first extension request before it, extending the 
operating life of Constellation Energy's <CEG.N> Calvert Cliffs Unit 
1 and 2 for 20 years each.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Perle					Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100   				    	
Director, Technical				Extension 2306 				     	
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division		Fax:(714) 668-3149 	                   		    
ICN Biomedicals, Inc.				E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net 				                           
ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue  		E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com          	          
Costa Mesa, CA 92626                                      

Personal Website:  http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205 
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com 

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html