stock here: I haven't had time to read the EPA Clean Power Plan, but the NIRS says it is AWESOME!here is the link
http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/5502/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1337727
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great news! The final version of the EPA's Clean Power Plan came out today--and we won!
Yes, you read that right. The Obama Administration's EPA listened. The agency incorporated most of what we asked for--and what tens of thousands of you asked for--in our comments to the EPA, in the streets of New York, and in media and conversations across the country. Provisions helping the nuclear industry have been removed; the EPA recognizes renewables as the future.
THANK YOU FOR ACTING! I've said it many times over the years: your actions do matter, and here is more proof.
It only makes sense for the EPA to do this, of course, especially since, as I reported on GreenWorld in June, the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration concluded that a heavily nuclear scenario provided no greater carbon reductions, but because of its cost crowded out deployment of cheaper and faster solar power. We would add cleaner and safer solar power as well.
We will be reporting more on the final version of the Clean Power Plan on GreenWorld soon--probably tomorrow. Watch for it.
stock here, read the whole story!------here
http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/5502/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1337727
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From "Grant Research"
This article by Jeff McMahon explains the take aways and the gives 4 nuclear well:
Final Clean Power Plan Drops Support For Existing Nuclear Plants www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2015/08/03/final-clean-power-plan-drops-support-for-existing-nuclear-plants/2
- provisions for assisting nuclear removed - that's EPA today. But, not so long ago nuclear physics research offered/awarded grants/loans through various mechanisms. They always find a way to support the nuclear industry. I'll keep watch on the usual suspects that funnel money to nuke pimps.
ReplyDeleteYa, the universities are now "Grant whores", and also massive contributors to politics. truly an unholy alliance when science is determined by corporate greed tramping around political willing puppets of power and political correctness.
DeleteSheesh, not even drinking.....lol
The devil is in the details ...
ReplyDeleteThe Clean Power Plan http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cpp/cpp-final-rule.pdf:
page 342 - "In the proposal, the EPA identified RE generating
capacity and nuclear generating capacity as potential sources of
lower- or zero-CO2 generation that could replace higher-CO
2 generation from affected EGUs."
page 345 - "The EPA is likewise not finalizing the proposal to include
a component representing preserved existing nuclear generation
in the BSER"
page 389 - "generation from under-construction or other new nuclear
units and capacity uprates at existing nuclear units would still
be able to help sources meet emission rate-based standards of
performance through the creation and use of credits"
page 389 - "the rule does not allow preservation of
generation from existing or relicensed nuclear capacity to serve
as the basis for creation of credits that individual affected
EGUs could use for compliance"
page 490 - "Accordingly, a section 111(d) plan
may rely on ERCs issued on the basis of generation from these
units and other new nuclear units."
page 1247 - "The EPA has determined that generation from new nuclear
units and capacity uprates at existing nuclear units will be
eligible for use in adjusting a CO2 emission rate, just like new and
uprated capacity RE. However, consistent with the reasons discussed
for not including the preservation of existing nuclear capacity in the BSER – namely,
that such preservation does not actually reduce existing levels of
CO2 emissions from affected EGUs – preserving generation from
existing nuclear capacity is not eligible for use in adjusting a
CO2 emission rate." "In contrast, any incremental zero-emitting generation from
new nuclear capacity would be expected to replace generation
from affected EGUs and, thereby, reduce CO
2 emissions; and the continued commitment of the owner/operators to completion of the
new units and improving the efficiency of existing units through
uprates can play a key role in state plans. Therefore,
consistent with treatment of other low- and zero-emitting
generation, new nuclear power generating capacity installed
after 2012 and incremental generation resulting from nuclear..."
I guess you have to sign it to read and determine that it is self conflicting and ambiguous.
DeleteYou actually read 1246 pages last night?
lol... not! did search for nuclear first, saw "existing nuclear" repeated often, thought about that, then did search for "new nuclear" and it all fell into place.
DeleteNuclear Development Nuclear New Build: Insights into Financing and Project Management https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2015/7195-nn-build-2015.pdf
ReplyDeletepage 236 - "The ability of NPPs to produce large amounts of low-carbon
baseload electricity makes it reliable, and continuing concerns about carbon-induced
climate change have sustained interest in nuclear new build in recent years. The complete picture nevertheless provides the impression of an uphill struggle, a struggle that the global nuclear industry is engaged in with resilience and inventiveness to overcome challenges. By analysing, assembling and synthesising experiences in nuclear new build, this report provides a common way forward"
They always find a way... must be watchful of these snakes.
Dying brontos with billions of dollars of propaganda can be dangerous, just like dying countries with a boatload of nuke bombs can be dangerous.
DeleteNuclear always finds a way because good always triumphs. In the end there will be MORE not less nuclear. So suck it Trebek.
ReplyDeleteYes in the "end times" I believe if we head that way, that will be true.
DeleteBTW, good does not always triumph. Its often power and propaganda that "triumph". Yet I shall joust.
Gotta throw the BS flag on your points.
ReplyDeletehttp://m.machinedesign.com/blog/nuclear-gets-nod-clean-power-plan-no-love-press
Looks like a "real site", too bad one author swallowed the precious lies of nuke.
DeleteI betcha I get banned from comments before too long.......
This article by Jeff McMahon explains the take aways and the gives 4 nuclear well:
ReplyDeleteFinal Clean Power Plan Drops Support For Existing Nuclear Plants www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2015/08/03/final-clean-power-plan-drops-support-for-existing-nuclear-plants/2/
and, more detail via nirs: IEER's Dr. Arjun Makhijani: The Clean Power Plan is a step in the right direction ieer.org/news/clean-power-plan-step-direction/
ReplyDelete