<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>HeatingOil.com &#187; nuclear fuel</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.heatingoil.com/tag/nuclear-fuel/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.heatingoil.com</link>
	<description>Heating Oil Intelligence</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:51:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Study: Emissions-Reduction Efforts Better Spent on Renewables than Nuclear</title>
		<link>http://www.heatingoil.com/blog/study-emissions-reduction-efforts-better-spent-on-renewables-than-nuclear1119/</link>
		<comments>http://www.heatingoil.com/blog/study-emissions-reduction-efforts-better-spent-on-renewables-than-nuclear1119/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:06:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Carol Sonenklar</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[energy efficiency]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[energy policy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[global warming]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[green energy technology]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[greenhouse gas emissions]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[renewable energy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[carbon emissions]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[climate bill senate]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Environment California]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Environment California and nuclear power]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Environment California Research & Policy Center]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[greenhouse emissions]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Los Angeles Times]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[nuclear energy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[nuclear energy bipartisan support climate bill]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[nuclear energy debate US]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[nuclear fuel]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[nuclear industry]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[nuclear power industry]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[nuclear power plant]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[nuclear reactors]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[nuclear the solution?]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Tiffany Hsu]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[United States and nuclear energy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US and nuclear energy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.heatingoil.com/?p=6149</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
A new report has concluded that more nuclear power is not going to help reduce global warming, reports Tiffany Hsu in the Los Angeles Times. A citizen-based environmental advocacy organization, the Environment California Research &#38; Policy Center, says that launching a nuclear power industry nearly from the ground up will take too long and cost [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_6150" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 460px"><img class="size-full wp-image-6150 " title="nuclear-reactors1" src="http://www.heatingoil.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/nuclear-reactors1.jpg" alt="Building more nuclear reactors may take too much time and do too little to reduce emissions. (image: amitojgautam.wordpress.com)" width="450" height="300" /><p class="wp-caption-text">Building more nuclear reactors may take too much time and do too little to reduce emissions. (image: amitojgautam.wordpress.com)</p></div>
<p align="left">
<p>A new report has concluded that more nuclear power is not going to help reduce global warming, <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2009/11/nuclear-power-less-effective-in-american-than-energy-efficiency-and-renewable-energy-says-report.html" target="_blank">reports Tiffany Hsu in the <em>Los Angeles Times</em></a>. A citizen-based environmental advocacy organization, the <a href="http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/" target="_blank">Environment California Research &amp; Policy Center</a>, says that launching a nuclear power industry nearly from the ground up will take too long and cost too much. Researchers say energy efficiency standards and renewable energy options are better solutions.</p>
<p>The last time a nuclear power plant was built in the US was 1978 and there are no new nuclear reactors on the horizon. All orders for nuclear facilities after fall 1973 were eventually canceled, according to the report.</p>
<p>The study suggested that building a new reactor would take about a decade; it could be completed by 2016 at the earliest. Plus, due to the lack of trained personnel, it would be difficult to manufacture parts for the reactor.</p>
<p>Even if the nuclear industry managed to build 100 reactors by 2030, the power they produced would only reduce total US emissions by 12 percent over the next 20 years. For Environment California, that is “far too little, too late.”</p>
<p>This report comes on the heels of recent reports that <a href="http://www.heatingoil.com/home/nuclear-energy-gains-prominence-key-compromise-climate-bill1117/" target="_blank">nuclear energy is the key to winning bipartisan support for the climate bill in the Senate</a>. So although nuclear energy might be the politically expedient choice, it may not be the wise one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.heatingoil.com/blog/study-emissions-reduction-efforts-better-spent-on-renewables-than-nuclear1119/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
