This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Even casual followers of energy and climate issues have probably heard about the alleged wonders of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). The failure of these projects to come in on time and under budget undermines arguments that modern nuclearpower plants can overcome the problems that have plagued the nuclear industry in the past.
Depending on the nature and extent of the damage, the plant could experience one or more core meltdowns or spent nuclear fuel pool fires, which could trigger a radiological release rivaling that of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident or even the larger release from the 1986 Chernobyl accident.
Whereas the existing criteria require that the transitional activity does not hamper the development and deployment of low-carbon alternatives (such as wind, solar or nuclear) the current proposal has no such restriction in function. For example, the title of section 4.27 reads (our emphasis): “4.27.
Look at the food crisis last year,” said former World Bank engineer John Briscoe in a 2011 interview. Gleick claims I misrepresented the Ehrlichs and Holdren, who elsewhere note the difference between nuclearpower plants and nuclear weapons, but I did not. Why else use it? I’m sad about that, not angry.
[PaEN] -- Bill Reported Out Of Senate Committee Would Allow Pipelines Like Mariner East To Apply For Waivers Of Any PUC Regulation, Law Or Policy [PaEN] -- PA Capital-Star: PA Senate Committee Advances Bill To Allow Utility Companies To Request A Waiver For Any Law Or Regulation Enforced By The PUC [ Senate Bill 1174 ] -- PennLive: PA Senate Republicans (..)
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content