Abstract not found

This chapter examines the potential environmental impacts associated with denying the renewal of an operating license (OL) (i.e., the no-action alternative); the potential environmental impacts from electric generating sources other than Turkey Point Units 3 and 4; the possibility of purchasing electric power from other sources to replace power generated by Units 3 and 4 and the associated environmental impacts; the potential environmental impacts from a combination of generating and conservation measures; and other generation alternatives that were deemed unsuitable for replacement of power generated by Units 3 and 4. The environmental impacts are evaluated using the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) three-level standard of significance—SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE—developed using the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines and set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR 51, Subpart A,

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considered the environmental impacts of renewing nuclear power plant operating licenses (OLs) for a 20-year period in its Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, and codified the results in 10 CFR Part 51. In the GEIS (and its Addendum 1), the staff identifies 92 environmental issues and reaches generic conclusions related to environmental impacts for 69 of these issues that apply to all plants or to plants with specific design or site characteristics. Additional plant-specific review is required for the remaining 23 issues. These plant-specific reviews are to be included in a supplement to the GEIS. This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to | an application submitted to the NRC by the Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) to renew the OLs for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. This SEIS | includes the NRC staff’s analysis that considers and weighs the environmental impacts of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. It also includes the

Abstract not found

Abstract not found

Abstract not found

This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of technical developments.

This study investigates the effect of modeling assumptions about levelized costs and market penetration on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) forecast for wind technologies. The AEO’s annual report of energy supply, demand, and prices through 2020 is based on results from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). NEMS predicts the market penetration of individual energy technologies based on a variety of inputs and assumed changes in these base values over time. The NEMS forecast of technology adoption and use is influenced most strongly by the model’s assumptions about the levelized cost of energy for the various technologies. For each year, NEMS allocates a share of the energy market to least-cost technologies; this allocation affects forecasts for future years. NEMS uses cost multipliers and constraints to represent potential physical and economic limitations on growth in capacity; these limitations include depletion of resources, costs of rapid manufacturing expansion, and the stability or instability of the power grid when high levels of generation come from intermittent resources. In the AEO99 Reference Case version of NEMS, the electric generation supply mix remains

Iowa State University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, age, religion, national origin, sexual

We analyze labor productivity in coal mining in the United States using indices of productivity change associated with the concepts of panel data modeling. This approach is valuable when there is extensive heterogeneity in production units, as with coal mines. We ¯nd substantial returns to scale for coal mining in all geographical regions, and ¯nd that smooth technical progress is exhibited by estimates of the ¯xed e®ects for coal mining. We carry out a variety of diagnostic analyses of our basic model and primary modeling assumptions, using recently proposed methods for addressing `errors-in-variables ' and `weak instrument bias ' problems, as well a new method for studying errors-in-variables in nonlinear contexts. 1.