Connect with us

Cleantech

Help Us Find Some Rural EV & Cleantech Stories Along I-40!

Published

on

Later this month, I’m going to be taking my first road trip for a special project I’m working on. It’s called Untold EV & Cleantech Stories, and the goal is to cover the stories from rural areas and small cities that just aren’t getting told. As my wife and I gather them, we’ll publish them right here at CleanTechnica, along with some videos on YouTube.

Eventually, we will be asking viewers for help with travel expenses to go and get more of these stories every month or two. For this first trip, though, I’m going to be covering my own costs to give readers an idea of what the project is all about so they can decide for themselves whether it’s worth something.

This trip is going to begin in Phoenix, Arizona and end on the coast in North Carolina, following Interstate 40 for most of the way. To get the most out of this trip, we’re seeking input from readers on cool images and stories we can gather along the way.

We’re looking for EV businesses, owner’s clubs, renewable energy projects and charging stations under construction, relevant museums, and anything else that you’d expect to see on CleanTechnica.

Places On Our List So Far

One of the first places we’ll be going is to check out the Lucid factory in Casa Grande, Arizona. We probably won’t be going through when they’re open, but we will be able to at least get some aerial images of what’s going on, if nothing else. If we’re lucky and someone will be there, we’ll gather more information and imagery inside!

Another neat oddball story is a followup of earth fissures in Arizona that hit the news a few years back. We’d like to get some images of at least one set of fissures and look at the fissures themselves firsthand. According to the Arizona Geological Survey, these fissures are caused by valleys that dry out, often from agricultural practices.

Another place we’ll be spending time is the Grand Canyon. One thing we want to look at is the reduction of light pollution in that area. Things were extremely dark there last time we visited, but we didn’t think to look at the impact of RVs and other visitors to the area at night. Photos are going to be a big part of that.

While we are there, we’ll be visiting some nearby local businesses that recently added level 2 charging stations. We want to see what their experience has been with getting, using, and maintaining the stations. Did it help business? Or does it seem to go unused?

We’ll also be looking at power stations in northern Arizona along our route. The coal power stations are a good place to get imagery for future coal stories, but they’re also an interesting dying breed that won’t be around for a lot longer. With the closure of the larger plants, it’s only a matter of time until the smaller ones close down.


Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.


 



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa
Source: https://cleantechnica.com/2021/06/07/help-us-find-some-rural-ev-cleantech-stories-along-i-40/

Cleantech

Plugin Vehicles Score 24% Of Auto Sales In The Netherlands — May 2021

Published

on

The Dutch plugin vehicle (PEV) market continues in the fast lane, with 5,986 plugin registrations logged last month. That meant that last month’s PEV share of the overall passenger auto market was 24% (13% BEV), pulling the year-to-date PEV share to 18% (7.9% BEV). This is still down compared to last year’s result (25%), but it is already above the 2019 score (15%). And expect this year’s result to continue growing throughout the year. As a term of comparison, in May 2020, the YTD share was at 12%, which could mean that if witness another strong end of year peak, we could see the plugin share end north of 30%. Not bad, eh?

Breaking down registrations between each plugin powertrain, BEVs continue to recover ground, having 56% of April’s registrations, the first time this year that pure electrics outsold plugin hybrids. For the year to date, they are now responsible for 44% of plugin sales. Expect pure electrics to continue recovering ground throughout the year. Although, with BEVs gradually losing their fiscal incentives year after year, plugin hybrids are indeed recovering their place in the market, highlighting just how sensitive to incentives the plugin market still is.

In May, the leader was a recent arrival, the Skoda Enyaq, scoring its first win in only its second month on the market, with 848 registrations. Another surprise showed up in the runner-up spot, as the Ford Mustang Mach-E joined the table in its first full month on the market, with 400 registrations. The last position on the podium went to the popular Volvo XC40 PHEV, with 392 registrations, the Swede’s best score in a year.

But the Mustang wasn’t the only Ford having a great month, because just off the podium, the Ford Kuga PHEV reached 5th place thanks to 339 registrations, its second record performance in a row! The Volkswagen ID.4 was 6th, with 219 registrations, and the BEV version of the XC40 was 7th, with 200 registrations.

Interestingly, and a sign of where the market is heading, all top 9 best sellers are either crossovers or SUVs … with the best positioned “car” (the Peugeot e-208) only showing up in #10.

In the second half of the table, we have a few surprises, like the #13 ranking of the Lynk & Co 01 PHEV, with Geely’s post-modern brand already showing up in the table in only its second month on the market. That could mean that the Chinese brand could become a regular face here. Meanwhile, the Citroen C4 EV won its first table presence, thanks to a record 66 deliveries, ending the month in #20.

Interestingly, Stellantis was the OEM with the highest number of models in May’s top 20, with 5 representatives coming from 4 different brands. Without many headlining articles or PR stunts, the French-Italian-German-American conglomerate is slowly making its way into the top positions.

Outside the top 20, May saw the Porsche Taycan score 60 registrations, its best result in 9 months, while Tesla delivered 61 Model 3s. The Californian brand is preparing a delivery assault in order to take June’s Best Seller trophy.

Looking at the 2021 ranking, while the #1 Volvo XC40 PHEV still remains untouchable, below it there is much to talk about, with the Skoda Enyaq benefiting from a strong May to jump 12 spots into 2nd place. The Czech station-wagon-disguised-as-an-SUV is now the most serious candidate to take the Volvo XC40 PHEV’s Best Seller trophy. A little further down the list, the #4 Ford Kuga PHEV and #3 Kia Niro EV are separated by just 28 units, so we might see a position change here soon.

The Renault Captur PHEV was up two spots, to #8, thus making it 9 crossovers/SUVs in the top positions.

In the second half of the table, a mention goes out to the Ford Mustang Mach-E joining the table in #12. Ford’s first serious EV seems destined to higher grounds (top 5?). The BMW iX3 was also up, having climbed to #15.

Another BEV joining the table was the #18 Peugeot e-208. In this case, it was at the expense of its French arch rival, the Renault Zoe…

And highlighting Peugeot’s good moment, the e-2008 crossover is now #21, just 12 units behind the #20 BMW X3 PHEV, so expect another Lion on the table soon….

In the manufacturer ranking, Volvo (16%) is the #1 brand, with BMW (13%, down 1 percentage point) in the runner-up position. A rising Ford (7%, up 3 points) removed Volkswagen (6%) from the podium, and the also rising Skoda (6%, up 3 points) is looking to beat the German automaker as well.

As for OEMs, balance is the word, with Volkswagen Group (19%, up 3 points) surpassing Geely-Volvo (18%) in May and BMW Group (14%) not far away.

Off the podium, we have Stellantis (11%) surpassing the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance (10%).


Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.


 



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa
Source: https://cleantechnica.com/2021/06/16/plugin-vehicles-score-24-of-auto-sales-in-the-netherlands-may-2021/

Continue Reading

Cleantech

When It Comes to Nuclear Power, “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better

Published

on

Courtesy of Union Of Concerned Scientists, The Equation.
By Elliott Negin

Nuclear power proponents have long been prone to wishful thinking. Back in 1954, Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss famously predicted that nuclear-generated electricity would ultimately become “too cheap to meter.” Today, nuclear power is among the most expensive forms of electricity.

Strauss’s successor at the commission, Nobel laureate Glenn Seaborg, projected in 1971 that nuclear power would produce nearly all the world’s electricity by 2000. Today, nuclear energy’s share of worldwide electricity is only 10 percent. In the United States, it produces about 20 percent, and about a third of the country’s fleet of aging reactors is struggling to compete with cheaper electricity sources.

Even so, there is growing interest in expanding the role of nuclear power to address climate change. As a low-carbon electricity source, it has obvious advantages over natural gas and coal. But besides being extremely expensive to build, conventional reactors — called light-water reactors because they use ordinary water to cool their radioactive cores — are beset by serious safety and security issues and generate radioactive waste that has to be sequestered for hundreds of thousands of years.

Enter “advanced” reactor designs

Undaunted, some nuclear energy developers are now promoting what they call “advanced” reactor designs as a solution. Unlike light-water reactors, these non-light-water designs rely on materials other than water for cooling, including liquid sodium, helium and molten salt. Some developers contend these reactors, which are still in the concept stage, will solve all the problems that plague light-water reactors and be ready for prime time by the end of the decade.

The siren song of a cheap, safe and secure nuclear reactor in the offing has attracted the attention of Biden administration officials and some key members of Congress, who are looking for any and all ways to curb carbon emissions. But are so-called advanced reactors merely the latest version of nuclear wishful thinking? A comprehensive Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) analysis of non-light-water reactor concepts in development suggests they are. Published in mid-March, the 140-page report found that these designs are no better — and in some respects significantly worse — than the light-water reactors in operation today.

Safety, security, and sustainability

The report, Advanced” Isn’t Always Better, assesses the pros and cons of three main types of non-light-water reactors: sodium-cooled fast reactors, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors and molten salt–fueled reactors. It rates each type on three broad criteria: safety; nuclear proliferation and terrorism risks; and sustainability, which refers to how efficiently they use uranium and how much long-lived nuclear waste they generate.

“If nuclear power is to play a larger role in addressing climate change, it is essential for new reactor designs to be safer, more secure, and pose comparable or — better yet — lower risks of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism than the existing reactor fleet,” says report author Dr. Edwin Lyman, a physicist and director of nuclear power safety at UCS. “Despite the hype surrounding them, none of the non-light-water reactors we reviewed meet all those requirements.”

At the end of May, the US nuclear power fleet was comprised of 93 light-water reactors, 11 fewer than in 2003. The industry’s decline was due to a number of factors, especially aging infrastructure and the inability to compete against natural gas as well as wind and solar, which are now the cheapest source of electricity in most countries around the world.

To try to stem its decline, the US nuclear industry promoted a “renaissance” in the early 2000s, and in 2005, Congress provided nearly $20 billion in federal loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors. The industry’s multimillion-dollar PR campaign has resulted in only two new Westinghouse AP1000 light-water reactors (in the foreground of the photo above), which are still under construction in Georgia with a price tag of $14 billion each — double their estimated cost — and taking more than twice their estimated completion time.

Given this struggle to build even standard-sized (1,000-megawatt) light-water reactors, the industry has turned to two other strategies to try to secure a bigger market share: small, modular light-water reactors, which — because of economies of scale — would produce even more expensive electricity than conventional reactors; and non-light-water reactors, which are largely based on unproven concepts from more than 50 years ago.

Outsized claims

The UCS report takes a close look at unsubstantiated claims developers have been making about these non-light-water designs. With little hard evidence, many developers have maintained they will be cheaper, safer and more secure than currently operating reactors; will burn uranium fuel more efficiently, produce less radioactive waste, and reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation; and could be commercialized relatively soon.

One of these reactors, TerraPower’s 345-megawatt, sodium-cooled Natrium fast reactor, received considerable media attention earlier this year when TerraPower founder Bill Gates touted it during interviews about his new book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. In mid-February, Gates told CBS’s 60 Minutes that the Natrium reactor will produce less nuclear waste and be safer and cheaper than a conventional light-water reactor.

TerraPower founder Bill Gates made unsubstantiated claims about his company’s Natrium reactor in an interview with CBS 60 Minutes correspondent Anderson Cooper. (CBS)

In fact, according to the UCS report, sodium-cooled fast reactors would likely be less uranium-efficient and would not reduce the amount of waste that requires long-term isolation. They also could experience safety problems that are not an issue for light-water reactors. Sodium coolant, for example, can burn when exposed to air or water, and the Natrium’s design could experience uncontrollable power increases that result in rapid core melting.

“When it comes to safety and security, sodium-cooled fast reactors and molten salt–fueled reactors are significantly worse than conventional light-water reactors,” says Lyman. “High-temperature gas-cooled reactors may have the potential to be safer, but that remains unproven, and problems have come up during recent fuel safety tests.”

Fast reactors have another major drawback. “Historically,” the report points out, “fast reactors have required plutonium or [highly enriched uranium]-based fuels, both of which could be readily used in nuclear weapons and therefore entail unacceptable risks of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism.” Some fast reactors, including the Natrium, will initially use a lower-enriched uranium fuel, called high-assay low-enriched uranium, which poses a lower proliferation risk than highly enriched uranium, but it is more attractive to terrorists seeking nuclear weapons than the much lower-enriched fuel that current light-water reactors use.

Unrealistic timetable

Timing is also an issue. Some developers claim they can demonstrate, license and deploy their non-light-water reactors on a commercial scale within as little as six years, enabling them to address the climate crisis in the near term. Last fall, for example, the Department of Energy (DOE) gave TerraPower and X-Energy, developer of a high-temperature gas-cooled “pebble-bed” reactor, $80 million each to begin operating first-of-a-kind commercial units by 2027. In June, TerraPower announced that it would site its demonstration reactor in Wyoming. X-Energy,  meanwhile, will most likely locate its demonstration plant at the Columbia Generating Station in Washington State.

From concept to a commercial unit in six years? The new Westinghouse AP1000 light-water reactor provides a cautionary tale. It took more than 30 years of research, development and construction before the first one was built in China and began to generate power in 2018. According to the UCS report, if federal regulators require the necessary safety demonstrations, it could take at least 20 years — and billions of dollars in additional costs — to commercialize non-light-water reactors, their associated fuel cycle facilities, and other related infrastructure.

“One of the new reactor designs being considered, the ‘breed-and-burn’ reactor, has the most potential because it doesn’t require reprocessing — or recycling — spent nuclear fuel, which poses unacceptable proliferation risks,” says Lyman. “But the concept is still saddled with considerable technical obstacles and safety hazards due to the fact that fuel would remain in the reactor longer than in a light-water reactor, allowing fission gases and pressure to build. That may be the reason why TerraPower suspended work on a breed-and-burn reactor design in favor of the Natrium.”

Next steps

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may have to adapt some regulations when licensing reactor technologies that differ significantly in design from the current fleet, but Lyman says that should not mean loosening standards that protect public health and safety. He finds no justification for the claim that “advanced” reactors will be so much safer and more secure that the NRC can exempt them from fundamental safeguards. On the contrary, because there are so many open questions about these reactors, they may need to meet even more stringent requirements.

The report recommends that the DOE suspend its advanced reactor demonstration program until the NRC determines whether full-scale prototype tests will be required before any designs are licensed for commercial deployment, which the report argues are essential. The report also calls on Congress to require the DOE to convene an independent commission to review the technical merits of all proposed non-light-water reactors and approve only those projects that have a high likelihood of commercialization and are clearly safer and more secure than the current fleet.

Finally, the report recommends that the DOE and Congress consider spending more research and development dollars on improving the safety and security of light-water reactors, rather than on commercializing immature, overhyped non-light-water reactor designs.

“Unfortunately, proponents of these non-light-water reactor designs are hyping them as a climate solution and downplaying their safety risks,” says Lyman. “Given that it should take at least two decades to commercialize any new nuclear reactor technology if done properly, the non-light-water concepts we reviewed do not offer a near-term solution and could only offer a long-term one if their safety and security risks are adequately addressed.” Any federal appropriations for research, development and deployment of these reactor designs, he says, “should be guided by a realistic assessment of the likely societal benefits that would result from investing billions of taxpayer dollars, not based on wishful thinking.”

A version of this article appeared in the Spring 2021 issue of Catalyst, UCS’s quarterly magazine.


Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.


 



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa
Source: https://cleantechnica.com/2021/06/16/when-it-comes-to-nuclear-power-advanced-isnt-always-better/

Continue Reading

Cleantech

When It Comes to Nuclear Power, “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better

Published

on

Courtesy of Union Of Concerned Scientists, The Equation.
By Elliott Negin

Nuclear power proponents have long been prone to wishful thinking. Back in 1954, Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss famously predicted that nuclear-generated electricity would ultimately become “too cheap to meter.” Today, nuclear power is among the most expensive forms of electricity.

Strauss’s successor at the commission, Nobel laureate Glenn Seaborg, projected in 1971 that nuclear power would produce nearly all the world’s electricity by 2000. Today, nuclear energy’s share of worldwide electricity is only 10 percent. In the United States, it produces about 20 percent, and about a third of the country’s fleet of aging reactors is struggling to compete with cheaper electricity sources.

Even so, there is growing interest in expanding the role of nuclear power to address climate change. As a low-carbon electricity source, it has obvious advantages over natural gas and coal. But besides being extremely expensive to build, conventional reactors — called light-water reactors because they use ordinary water to cool their radioactive cores — are beset by serious safety and security issues and generate radioactive waste that has to be sequestered for hundreds of thousands of years.

Enter “advanced” reactor designs

Undaunted, some nuclear energy developers are now promoting what they call “advanced” reactor designs as a solution. Unlike light-water reactors, these non-light-water designs rely on materials other than water for cooling, including liquid sodium, helium and molten salt. Some developers contend these reactors, which are still in the concept stage, will solve all the problems that plague light-water reactors and be ready for prime time by the end of the decade.

The siren song of a cheap, safe and secure nuclear reactor in the offing has attracted the attention of Biden administration officials and some key members of Congress, who are looking for any and all ways to curb carbon emissions. But are so-called advanced reactors merely the latest version of nuclear wishful thinking? A comprehensive Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) analysis of non-light-water reactor concepts in development suggests they are. Published in mid-March, the 140-page report found that these designs are no better — and in some respects significantly worse — than the light-water reactors in operation today.

Safety, security, and sustainability

The report, Advanced” Isn’t Always Better, assesses the pros and cons of three main types of non-light-water reactors: sodium-cooled fast reactors, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors and molten salt–fueled reactors. It rates each type on three broad criteria: safety; nuclear proliferation and terrorism risks; and sustainability, which refers to how efficiently they use uranium and how much long-lived nuclear waste they generate.

“If nuclear power is to play a larger role in addressing climate change, it is essential for new reactor designs to be safer, more secure, and pose comparable or — better yet — lower risks of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism than the existing reactor fleet,” says report author Dr. Edwin Lyman, a physicist and director of nuclear power safety at UCS. “Despite the hype surrounding them, none of the non-light-water reactors we reviewed meet all those requirements.”

At the end of May, the US nuclear power fleet was comprised of 93 light-water reactors, 11 fewer than in 2003. The industry’s decline was due to a number of factors, especially aging infrastructure and the inability to compete against natural gas as well as wind and solar, which are now the cheapest source of electricity in most countries around the world.

To try to stem its decline, the US nuclear industry promoted a “renaissance” in the early 2000s, and in 2005, Congress provided nearly $20 billion in federal loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors. The industry’s multimillion-dollar PR campaign has resulted in only two new Westinghouse AP1000 light-water reactors (in the foreground of the photo above), which are still under construction in Georgia with a price tag of $14 billion each — double their estimated cost — and taking more than twice their estimated completion time.

Given this struggle to build even standard-sized (1,000-megawatt) light-water reactors, the industry has turned to two other strategies to try to secure a bigger market share: small, modular light-water reactors, which — because of economies of scale — would produce even more expensive electricity than conventional reactors; and non-light-water reactors, which are largely based on unproven concepts from more than 50 years ago.

Outsized claims

The UCS report takes a close look at unsubstantiated claims developers have been making about these non-light-water designs. With little hard evidence, many developers have maintained they will be cheaper, safer and more secure than currently operating reactors; will burn uranium fuel more efficiently, produce less radioactive waste, and reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation; and could be commercialized relatively soon.

One of these reactors, TerraPower’s 345-megawatt, sodium-cooled Natrium fast reactor, received considerable media attention earlier this year when TerraPower founder Bill Gates touted it during interviews about his new book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. In mid-February, Gates told CBS’s 60 Minutes that the Natrium reactor will produce less nuclear waste and be safer and cheaper than a conventional light-water reactor.

TerraPower founder Bill Gates made unsubstantiated claims about his company’s Natrium reactor in an interview with CBS 60 Minutes correspondent Anderson Cooper. (CBS)

In fact, according to the UCS report, sodium-cooled fast reactors would likely be less uranium-efficient and would not reduce the amount of waste that requires long-term isolation. They also could experience safety problems that are not an issue for light-water reactors. Sodium coolant, for example, can burn when exposed to air or water, and the Natrium’s design could experience uncontrollable power increases that result in rapid core melting.

“When it comes to safety and security, sodium-cooled fast reactors and molten salt–fueled reactors are significantly worse than conventional light-water reactors,” says Lyman. “High-temperature gas-cooled reactors may have the potential to be safer, but that remains unproven, and problems have come up during recent fuel safety tests.”

Fast reactors have another major drawback. “Historically,” the report points out, “fast reactors have required plutonium or [highly enriched uranium]-based fuels, both of which could be readily used in nuclear weapons and therefore entail unacceptable risks of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism.” Some fast reactors, including the Natrium, will initially use a lower-enriched uranium fuel, called high-assay low-enriched uranium, which poses a lower proliferation risk than highly enriched uranium, but it is more attractive to terrorists seeking nuclear weapons than the much lower-enriched fuel that current light-water reactors use.

Unrealistic timetable

Timing is also an issue. Some developers claim they can demonstrate, license and deploy their non-light-water reactors on a commercial scale within as little as six years, enabling them to address the climate crisis in the near term. Last fall, for example, the Department of Energy (DOE) gave TerraPower and X-Energy, developer of a high-temperature gas-cooled “pebble-bed” reactor, $80 million each to begin operating first-of-a-kind commercial units by 2027. In June, TerraPower announced that it would site its demonstration reactor in Wyoming. X-Energy,  meanwhile, will most likely locate its demonstration plant at the Columbia Generating Station in Washington State.

From concept to a commercial unit in six years? The new Westinghouse AP1000 light-water reactor provides a cautionary tale. It took more than 30 years of research, development and construction before the first one was built in China and began to generate power in 2018. According to the UCS report, if federal regulators require the necessary safety demonstrations, it could take at least 20 years — and billions of dollars in additional costs — to commercialize non-light-water reactors, their associated fuel cycle facilities, and other related infrastructure.

“One of the new reactor designs being considered, the ‘breed-and-burn’ reactor, has the most potential because it doesn’t require reprocessing — or recycling — spent nuclear fuel, which poses unacceptable proliferation risks,” says Lyman. “But the concept is still saddled with considerable technical obstacles and safety hazards due to the fact that fuel would remain in the reactor longer than in a light-water reactor, allowing fission gases and pressure to build. That may be the reason why TerraPower suspended work on a breed-and-burn reactor design in favor of the Natrium.”

Next steps

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may have to adapt some regulations when licensing reactor technologies that differ significantly in design from the current fleet, but Lyman says that should not mean loosening standards that protect public health and safety. He finds no justification for the claim that “advanced” reactors will be so much safer and more secure that the NRC can exempt them from fundamental safeguards. On the contrary, because there are so many open questions about these reactors, they may need to meet even more stringent requirements.

The report recommends that the DOE suspend its advanced reactor demonstration program until the NRC determines whether full-scale prototype tests will be required before any designs are licensed for commercial deployment, which the report argues are essential. The report also calls on Congress to require the DOE to convene an independent commission to review the technical merits of all proposed non-light-water reactors and approve only those projects that have a high likelihood of commercialization and are clearly safer and more secure than the current fleet.

Finally, the report recommends that the DOE and Congress consider spending more research and development dollars on improving the safety and security of light-water reactors, rather than on commercializing immature, overhyped non-light-water reactor designs.

“Unfortunately, proponents of these non-light-water reactor designs are hyping them as a climate solution and downplaying their safety risks,” says Lyman. “Given that it should take at least two decades to commercialize any new nuclear reactor technology if done properly, the non-light-water concepts we reviewed do not offer a near-term solution and could only offer a long-term one if their safety and security risks are adequately addressed.” Any federal appropriations for research, development and deployment of these reactor designs, he says, “should be guided by a realistic assessment of the likely societal benefits that would result from investing billions of taxpayer dollars, not based on wishful thinking.”

A version of this article appeared in the Spring 2021 issue of Catalyst, UCS’s quarterly magazine.


Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.


 



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa
Source: https://cleantechnica.com/2021/06/16/when-it-comes-to-nuclear-power-advanced-isnt-always-better/

Continue Reading

Cleantech

Judge Pauses Biden Pause On Oil & Gas Leasing

Published

on

A federal judge on Tuesday effectively paused the Biden administration’s pause on new oil and gas leasing on public lands and waters. The preliminary injunction applies nationwide and is a blow to a high-profile component of Biden’s sweeping executive actions on climate change, taken soon after assuming office. The administration said it would comply with the order but did not say when lease auctions would resume. And while the judge criticized a lack of explanation for cancelling lease sales, it also said an Interior Department review of the policy is expected to be completed in the coming weeks.

Sources: APReutersWashington Post $, New York Times $, Wall Street Journal $, Politico Pro $

Originally published by Nexus Media (images added by editor).


Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.


 



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa
Source: https://cleantechnica.com/2021/06/16/judge-pauses-biden-pause-on-oil-gas-leasing/

Continue Reading
Esports5 days ago

Lost Ark Founders Pack: Everything You Need to Know

Aviation4 days ago

Delta Air Lines Flight Diverts To Oklahoma Over Unruly Off-Duty Flight Attendant

Aviation3 days ago

Spirit Airlines Just Made The Best Argument For Lifting LaGuardia’s Perimeter Rule

Energy5 days ago

Daiki Axis Co., Ltd. (4245, First Section, Tokyo Stock Exchange) Overview of Operating Performance for the First Three Months Ended March 31, 2021

Esports2 days ago

Clash of Clans June 2021 Update patch notes

Esports4 days ago

Genshin Impact Murals: Location Guide

Blockchain3 days ago

Africa Leading Bitcoin P2P Trading Volume Growth in 2021

Esports2 days ago

Legends of Runeterra Patch 2.10.0 brings bug fixes and Pool Party cosmetics

Blockchain5 days ago

DCR Technical Analysis: Look for Support Levels of $130.13 and $126.01

Aviation3 days ago

Boeing 727 Set To Be Turned Into Luxury Hotel Experience

Gaming4 days ago

Forza Horizon 5 Announced, Launches November 9

Esports4 days ago

Genshin Impact Music Rock Puzzle Guide

Big Data3 days ago

In El Salvador’s bitcoin beach town, digital divide slows uptake

Blockchain2 days ago

Since It Adopted Bitcoin As Legal Tender, The World Is Looking At El Salvador

Esports9 hours ago

World of Warcraft 9.1 Release Date: When is it?

Blockchain4 days ago

Ripple price analysis: Ripple retests $0.80 support, prepares to push higher? 

Blockchain4 days ago

Binance Is Launching a Decentralized NFT Platform

HRTech2 days ago

Pre-Owned Luxury Car dealer Luxury Ride to add 80 Employees across functions to boost growth

Esports4 days ago

Jurassic World Evolution 2 Release Date: When is it?

Blockchain5 days ago

Texas Banks Can Now Provide Bitcoin Custody Services For Clients

Trending