Please share far and wide!

Monday, August 3, 2015

EPA Clean Power Plan Fully Supports Renewable, and DOES NOT Give Advantage to Existing Nuke

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

 

13 comments:

  1. - 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ya, 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.

      Sheesh, not even drinking.....lol

      Delete
  2. The devil is in the details ...
    The 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..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess you have to sign it to read and determine that it is self conflicting and ambiguous.

      You actually read 1246 pages last night?

      Delete
    2. 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.

      Delete
  3. Nuclear Development Nuclear New Build: Insights into Financing and Project Management https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2015/7195-nn-build-2015.pdf

    page 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dying brontos with billions of dollars of propaganda can be dangerous, just like dying countries with a boatload of nuke bombs can be dangerous.

      Delete
  4. Nuclear always finds a way because good always triumphs. In the end there will be MORE not less nuclear. So suck it Trebek.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes in the "end times" I believe if we head that way, that will be true.

      BTW, good does not always triumph. Its often power and propaganda that "triumph". Yet I shall joust.

      Delete
  5. Gotta throw the BS flag on your points.

    http://m.machinedesign.com/blog/nuclear-gets-nod-clean-power-plan-no-love-press

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like a "real site", too bad one author swallowed the precious lies of nuke.

      I betcha I get banned from comments before too long.......

      Delete
  6. 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/

    ReplyDelete
  7. 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

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments