GASP!     WOOT! YES!

President Barack Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize today for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples“; as well as for his ongoing work to free the world of all nuclear weapons.

Read more of this story »

The House Waxman-Markey bill has drawn criticism for being too friendly to utility companies, who would be handed a large percentage of the carbon credit allowances created. That criticism has come not only from environmental advocates who are concerned that free allowances will undermine the value of a cap, but also from other business interests who see the credits creating a potential windfall for utilities - especially those who already generate much of their power from cleaner fuels.

The Chamber’s opposition to Waxman-Markey is understandable when you consider that they represent a broad cross-section of business sectors, including many that did not fare as well in the negotiations as Waxman-Markey took shape. For their part, the Chamber has responded to the recent defections by noting that it only opposes the House bill itself, and is not opposed to the idea of climate-change legislation. According to their COO David Chavern, “Congress should do everything it can to promote and incentivize technology development and other policies that allow us to control carbon in ways that don’t trash the economy.” The fact that the Chamber’s site was unavailable on the morning of Exelon’s announcement indicates that the public may not be ready for so nuanced a position.

Might the departures be a harbinger of movement away from the Chamber across the entire utility sector? Or, should they be viewed as evidence of a fracture within the industry? Utilities that rely more heavily on coal and other dirty fuels share the Chamber’s concerns about cap-and-trade’s impact on the cost of their power. By contrast, PG&E, PNM, Exelon and others that are already invested heavily in cleaner fuels can afford to appear green. It may even be profitable.

The Chamber is in the news right now, but the place to watch as the Senate picks up debate of its own bill will be the utility trade group, Edison Electric Institute, which represents the investor-owned companies on both signs of the fuel type divide. EEI has already been engaging Senate leaders in a way that tries to split the difference for its membership: they are not running from Waxman-Markey, but they have some suggestions for improvement on the Senate side.

This dust-up may be all the more costly for utilities, their trade group and the Chamber if long-term discord is fomented for naught. The Senate will need 60 votes to get a bill. It will be tough to get there as Democrats hailing from industrial and agricultural states have the 1993 BTU Tax debacle in their memories and a 2010 election year in their sights. And, with political fallout that could be even more dramatic than the squabbles that are now unfolding in the business community, there may not be a Senate climate bill in 2009. Either way, the utility industry will be left to mend fences. The questions now are whose fences, and how many?

In her hour-long appearance on Meet The Press last weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made much of the threat that North Korea poses not only as a potentially unpredictable nuclear weapons deployment state, but also as a proliferation agent. Similarly, the question of possible repurposing of civil nuclear technology has been a talking point in US policy on Iran, and that question specifically has been a bone of contention in the triangular posturing between the US, Iran and Russia.

Read more of this story »

Read more of this story »

“Emission-free nuclear power remains a crucial aspect of Ontario’s supply mix,” Smitherman said Monday. “Unfortunately, the competitive bidding process has not provided Ontario with a suitable option at this time.”

The proposed 10 year, multi-billion dollar project may eventually be restarted, but government spokespeople confirmed that all bidders have been asked to extend their proposals indefinitely.

Read more of this story »

Beth Daley writes about the “hard look” that proposed biomass facilities - and biomass technology itself - are getting from area environmentalists and regulators. Add that to the “hard look” many regulators, environmental groups and local NIMBY opponents are giving wind (especially commercial-scale) and transmission lines (needed to interconnect any new renewable capacity) and you are left with: business as usual. Now that is a goal Americans, our politicians and business interests can all get behind - just look at health care reform.

Read more of this story »

Earlier today the Zwentendorf nuclear plant in Austria reopened as a solar power station, making it the largest facility of its kind anywhere in the country.

Following its completion over 30 years ago, the plant’s operation was fiercely contested - culminating in a 1978 national referendum forcing it to close. Since then it has lain dormant as a visible testament to Austrian concerns over nuclear energy.

Now, following a €1.2 million investment the plant has reemerged as a major renewable energy production facility.

Read more of this story »

According to Missouri Senator Kit Bond (R) the cap and trade Waxman-Markey Bill “is really a pig in a poke.” That’s what he told the committee on Tuesday, anyway. Given the opportunity to speak in front of a committee on the financial impacts that the climate bill would have on farmers, Senator Bond wasted no time calling the bill a hoax.

Senator Bond told committee members on Tuesday that the proposed bill would end up costing farmers up to $30,000 per year with the increase in energy costs. These costs work into every detail of a farmers life, from diesel fuel to power their tractors and combines to natural gas in order to make fertilizer. Farm equipment uses energy for irrigation pumps and drying grain before storage.

Read more of this story »

With the historic passage of climate legislation through the House of Representatives, many concerns have trickled forth. Does the climate legislation do enough? Will it even work? Does it have the right aim? With the issuance of similar concerns have come proposed solutions and substitutions. The republicans have proposed that 100 nuclear power plants be built by 2030 in place of the proposed cap-and-trade climate bill. I’ve recently written two articles on the Republican “solution” to both the climate and economic crises. And today I’m writing more.

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) announced his own personal blueprint for the nation’s recovery. He began by re-stating the Senate Republicans’ plan that would replace the cap-and-trade legislation passed by the House, which includes building 100 nuclear power plants within 20 years, the encouragement of electric cars for conservation, offshore exploration for natural gas and oil and doubling energy research and development to make renewable energy cost-competitive.

Read more of this story »

A few weeks ago Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) called for a new energy solution. A solution that came in the form of 100 new nuclear power plants. That vision has not left the republicans’ eyes. And on Tuesday, Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) added his two cents.

During a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Crapo stated that “any successful plan to reduce carbon emissions must also involve nuclear power…Nuclear power is the best and quickest way to increase our clean energy options.” And mentioned that it should be included in any legislation, including the democrat-backed cap and trade legislation currently on the table.

Crapo said the Idahoans are skeptical of the cap and trade deal due to the possibility of increased energy costs. “A better option may be to ramp up the use of clean, nuclear technology, and existing energy sources so that we may transition to new sources without the damage to our economy we would see under a cap and trade scheme,” he added.

He urged the exploration and advancement on the United States’ nuclear energy infrastructure, calling nuclear power “the best solution on climate change.”

This post contains additional media. Click here to view the full post.

Photo Credit: huntz via flickr under Creative Commons License

And now the blueprint:

“Nuclear power is the obvious first step to a policy of clean and low-cost energy. One hundred new plants in 20 years would double U.S. nuclear production, making it about forty percent of all electricity production. Add 10% for sun and wind and other renewables, another 10% for hydroelectric, maybe 5% for natural gas—and we begin to have a cheap as well as clean energy policy.”

The second step is to transition into an electric vehicle nation, where half of the cars are electric. According to Brookings Institution scholars, this could be done without building more power plants because of the vast amounts of energy that goes unused at nights. That power, which is already produced, would be used as vehicles charged overnight.

The third step? “Explore offshore for natural gas (it’s low carbon) and oil (using less, but using our own).”

And finally, put more money toward research - doubling funding. We need to work to create answers to meet energy challenges, which include: improving batteries for plug-in vehicles, making solar power cost competitive with fossil fuels, making carbon capture a reality for coal-burning plants, safely recycling used nuclear fuel, making advanced biofuels (crops we don’t eat) cost-competitive with gasoline, making more buildings green buildings and providing energy from fusion.

Here lies his blueprint. He exposed it to proponents and opponents alike. And he closed by stating that “our policy of cheap and clean energy based upon nuclear power, electric cars, off-shore exploration and doubling energy R&D will help family budgets and create jobs. It will also prove to be the fastest way to increase American energy independence, clean the air and reduce global warming.”

He welcomes comments at www.alexander.senate.gov.

For a full text of his speech, click here.

Photo Credit: www.alexander.senate.gov

“We all remember this time last year,” said Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., at a hearing on Capitol Hill on Monday. “We were in the midst of an energy crisis, paying $4 for a gallon of gasoline, and Americans were seeing their utility bills skyrocketing.” Since then, he went on to say, the energy problems haven’t disappeared and no changes in policy have been made. He warned that, though the prices have gone down, if we do not make any changes, we will fall into the same hole in which we found ourselves last summer.

His solution? Nuclear. Stating that “the cornerstone of any real solution to the American energy problem needs to involve offshore resources and nuclear power…which generates electricity without producing greenhouse gas emissions and has a minimal impact on the environment.”  The first step to escaping America’s current energy crisis according to Wicker is to build more nuclear power plants.

Read more of this story »

“Apologists for the nuclear and fossil fuel industries persist in trying to mislead the public by repeatedly spreading the myth that renewables account for only a tiny fraction of U.S. electricity production,” said Ken Bossong, Executive Director of the SUN DAY Campaign in a press release. “However, the hard numbers document the continuing dramatic growth in renewable energy’s already-significant contribution to the nation’s electricity supply – a contribution that will eventually leave coal and nuclear behind in the dust.”

Read more of this story »

In southeast Utah rests a peaceful town located on the banks of a peaceful river. Here the Green River flows between two canyons, Gray and Labyrinth, allowing for farming and ranching in an arid desert. Driving through Green River, Utah doesn’t take but a few moments, including a stop to purchase some mouth-watering melons, for which Green River is famous. But Green River now has a new claim to fame.

Transition Power Development LLC (TPD) has proposed construction of a 2 unit nuclear power plant known as the Blue Castle Project situated just outside of the peaceful town. In order to maintain the 2 unit nuclear power plant, massive amounts of water would be required. The Kane County Water Conservancy District (KCWCD) has filed a water-rights application in order to facilitate the project. The application requests 29,600 acre-feet of water, which would be diverted from the Green River, a part of the Colorado River drainage.

Read more of this story »

Read more of this story »

A study released Wednesday shows that there are far fewer animals living in the area around Chernobyl and that animals living there are much more likely to be deformed.

“Usually (deformed) animals get eaten quickly, as it’s hard to escape if your wings are not the same length. In this case we found a high incidence of deformed animals,” said Anders Moller, a researcher working at Chernobyl since 1991.

Read more of this story »

Yucca Mountain: it’s nice to look at, but green it ain’t. The thought of endless nuclear waste barely contained inside a seismically-active mountain is enough to give anyone the chills. That’s why nuclear design engineer Dean Engelhardt started Permanent RadWaste Solutions, a company that proposes to send nuclear waste to the surface of Earth’s inner core.

Read more of this story »

Few energy technologies fit CleanTechnica’s “Technology Inspired By Nature” tag-line as thoroughly as the University of Michigan’s VIVACE Converter—which as we’ve already mentioned derives many of its innovations from imitating how fish create and exploit turbulent currents.

As adorable and eco-friendly as that sounds, it’s also reassuring for investors and geeks to know that VIVACE has additional foundation in over a century of really hardcore (and phenomenally mind-numbing) mechanical and structural engineering research (i.e. Fluid Dynamics).

Read more of this story »

Perhaps the uranium industry’s fear of peak uranium is unfounded. Intellectual Ventures is preparing to spin off a company called TerraPower to develop nuclear reactors that run primarily on depleted uranium. While most nuclear reactors use enriched uranium, the depleted variety has many advantages— most importantly, a smaller amount of uranium is required to create the same amount of power.

Read more of this story »

Nuclear power is one of the most controversial alternative energies, partially due to the toxic waste it creates. Now physicists at the University of Texas at Austin have developed a system that uses fusion to eliminate the transuranic wastes created by nuclear plants.

Read more of this story »

“It is leading the United States, and quite frankly, even though the bulk of the United States is behind the developed world, I think California in many respects is partially leading the world,” newly-confirmed U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said in an interview for the special. “It’s wonderful to be director of a major research lab that wants to work on this energy problem in a state that is so receptive to this work.”

Read more of this story »