By Jarret Adams

Today’s announcement of a memorandum of understanding for 80 offshore wind turbines for AREVA’s subsidiary Multibrid signals a major step forward for our renewable business.  Apart from the fact that this will be a contract worth over $900 million for AREVA, it reinforces our position as a major player in the renewables sector.

These wind turbines will be located off the North Sea coast of Germany, but AREVA is looking for opportunities for new business at various locations in North America. Our company remains one of a handful capable of producing the 5 MW offshore wind turbines.

AREVA also is involved in other renewable sectors, such as biopower (biomass to electricity). We have constructed 100 biomass facilities around the world and are now looking to build more in the United States.

Last September, AREVA and Duke Energy formed ADAGE, a joint venture focused on providing biopower solutions to U.S. electricity customers. Since its formation, ADAGE has moved forward with the goal of building 10-12 facilities over the next six years. In February, ADAGE announced a preliminary agreement with Energy Northwest to market 50 MW biopower facilities in Pacific Northwest.

Developing solutions for power generations with a small environmental impact from renewables, such as wind and biomass, along with clean nuclear energy is a main focus of our business.

We’d like to direct your attention to an op-ed by Jeff Jacoby in this Sunday’s Boston Globe: “The Coming Nuclear Renaissance.”  Here are some of the highlights:

There is no small irony in this turnabout. Nuclear power used to be the environmentalist’s ultimate pariah, thanks mostly to overblown claims about the dangers of reactor meltdowns and nuclear waste. But now the green movement has a new pariah – fossil fuels and their carbon dioxide emissions. To many environmentalists alarmed about global warming, nuclear power has an irresistible appeal: It releases no greenhouse gases. Indeed – another irony – nuclear power plants don’t even release as much radiation as coal-fired plants, since coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.

As a result, some of the world’s most ardent Greens have come around to embracing nuclear power.

“Only nuclear power can now halt global warming,” wrote James Lovelock, the father of the celebrated Gaia theory, which regards the Earth and life on the planet as one complex, interacting “organism,” in 2004. In Wired magazine the following year, a much-discussed article – “Nuclear Now!” – made the case that only “clean, green atomic energy can stop global warming.”

The problems with nuclear energy have not vanished. To build a nuclear plant is an expensive undertaking, the disposal of spent fuel rods remains politically contentious, and at least some environmental activists will continue to do what they can to exacerbate fear of nuclear power’s dangers.

But 30 years after Three Mile Island, the nuclear future looks brighter than it has in a long time. Right now, 104 commercial reactors generate 20 percent of America’s electricity. As the war against the atom continues to wind down, expect to see those numbers go up.

The whole article is excellent; check it out.  We, of course, would like to point out that the question of spent fuel rod disposal will become much more manageable when we start recycling spent fuel here in the U.S. rather than just using it once and calling it waste.  AREVA is leading the way in the nuclear industry toward a more efficient fuel cycle.

By Jarret Adams

One opinion poll after another shows public support for new nuclear plants is at an all time high. Even the USA Today has recognized that nuclear energy is beginning to make a comeback in the U.S. Americans understand that if we are serious about tackling global warming and breaking our addiction to foreign fuel we must have new nuclear.

There are critics of nuclear power that suggest that conservation, with a mix of solar and wind power, will be enough.  Conservation is important and we have made great strides in efficiency but these measures can only get us so far. The Department of Energy expects energy demand to grow by 25 percent by 2030.  Can wind and solar power really provide the energy we need to meet that demand?  The simple answer is they can’t.  We support wind and solar and we want to see more in the United States, but they are not enough.

At AREVA, we are working to ensure the country has the new nuclear plants it needs.  In light of growing energy demand, the U.S. must have 35 new nuclear plants to maintain nuclear energy’s current 20 percent share of generation. As the leading nuclear energy company both in the U.S. and abroad, we plan on providing one-third of those plants. 

Several companies have already decided to use our EPR™ technology for new plants.  We are constructing four EPR reactors overseas and we are pushing ahead to obtain design certification for the U.S. EPR technology from the nuclear Regulatory Commission.  We have invested $200 million in the task and assembled a team of more than 500 engineers and technicians to see it through.  And our investment in the supporting infrastructure will give the reactor more than 80% U.S. content.

Each new nuclear plant will provide thousands of construction, maintenance and operations jobs on site and many more in the numerous support industries. New nuclear power plants provide clean-baseload energy as well as the jobs the country desperately needs.  We hired 600 employees in 2008 and we plan to match that number this year as we prepare to build new plants. This summer, we plan on breaking ground on AREVA Newport News, our $400 million engineering and manufacturing facility in Newport News, Va., which will supply heavy components to the U.S. nuclear energy sector. And, last year we announced the location of our mult-billion nuclear fuel enrichment facility in Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Our support for new nuclear power is unwavering.

An editorial caught our eye in the Arizona Tuscon Citizen, written by Glenn Hammer, the President of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Here is a snippet :

“Make no mistake, even with the economic decline, the need for new energy is enormous….

Renewable sources, such as solar energy, should and will play an increasingly important role in the generation of electricity in Arizona and the United States, but they cannot deliver the power necessary to fuel our growth today.

In contrast, nuclear produces 75 percent of the carbon-free electricity in the United States today and about 25 percent of Arizona’s total electric output. The United States puts itself in serious jeopardy by being unprepared for its future electricity needs in a carbon-constrained world….

There is no silver bullet for meeting our energy challenges, but nuclear needs to be a serious part of the discussion, especially if we are addressing carbon regulations.”

AREVA Canada Inc. congratulates the Nuclear Power Expert Panel on today’s release of the panel’s report to the Government of Alberta. The report provides a thorough review of nuclear power generation in Alberta as a contribution to the discussion and understanding of the industry and its potential in the province.

“AREVA Canada is very pleased that a report of this calibre has been produced for the people of Alberta,” said Armand Laferrere, President and CEO of AREVA Canada Inc. “A knowledgeable discussion is critical for Albertans to make important decisions about clean energy options for the rovince’s future.”

The Report on Nuclear Power and Alberta will be the starting point for a province-wide public consultation process that will guide the government’s position on nuclear power generation in the province.

“We believe that Alberta is on the cusp of leadership on diversified and clean energy sources for the province. Broad public consultation is an important step in assuming that leadership role,” said Laferrere. “AREVA has worked to keep the public aware and informed about the latest technology that makes nuclear generated power exceedingly clean and safe, and we look forward to participating in future consultation when asked.”

AREVA Canada has been in Canada for more than 40 years and employs 925 people in 18 locations across the country. Its Canadian operations include uranium mining, electricity transmission and stribution, equipment manufacture and engineering services for nuclear power generators.

By Laura Clise
Sustainable Development & Continuous Improvement

In the current economic environment, more people have started to question the staying-power of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and sustainability programs. Thought leaders and practitioners have made the case that sustainable development programs and initiatives should remain intact despite cost cutting.  Still, the economic crisis has presented an opportunity for reconciling whether all of the recent buzz and glitz surrounding CSR and sustainability are more than glossy reports and marketing mechanisms.

AREVA proves that when companies effectively align their economic, social and environmental responsibility commitments with their strategic business objectives, sustainable development endures. 

From our 10 commitments, to quarterly reporting on sustainable development metrics, to the “AREVA Way” continuous improvement initiative used across the group to facilitate economic, social and environmental progress, sustainable development and continuous improvement frame AREVA’s management and strategy processes.

But for those not satiated by metrics and management systems, how about a program that encourages collaboration and sustainable innovation among AREVA’s employees around the world?  I recently participated as a member of the AREVA Sustainable Development Awards  Assessment Committee.  This group meets every other year to recognize projects that best incorporate economic, social, and environmental benefit and align with AREVA’s 10 commitments.

From training at-risk youth regarding environmental protection to reduce workforce turnover and absenteeism, to instilling a continuous improvement culture that drives reduction in waste and energy consumption, to partnering with suppliers to improve their material and energy efficiency, AREVA teams continue to improve our economic, social and environmental performance.

When we think through the lens of sustainable development, it is exciting to explore what is possible through this kind of innovation and collaboration.

It makes sense to at least have other options out there…

— Oklahoma House Speaker Chris Benge,on his fossil fuel rich state lifting the moratorium on nuclear power

The official White House website has added a new feature, “Open For Questions,” which allows people to ask the President key questions on the economy and vote up other people’s submissions.

So far, over 13,000 people have submitted over 16,000 questions. There are a number of good questions on the economic effect of nuclear energy, in the category of Green Jobs and Energy. Here are some that caught our eye:

Mr. President why not embrace Nuclear Power it would create tens of thousands of jobs and cut our dependence on foreign oil . The job creation would be sustaniable and would occur in may areas of the country that need them.
jsc, malvern, pa

With the scarcity of Oil looming as well as other resources, has your administration thought about implimenting Nuclear power on a more massive scale, so that we would get a large amount of our power from nuclear energy, similar to France?
Wesley M, Sammamish, WA

Do you have any plans on closing the nuclear fuel cycle in the United States so that we can recycle our spent nuclear fuel?
C-los with the Most, Knoxville, TN

The French success with nuclear power is based on standardized designs and recycling uranium. When will the DOE and NCR benchmark this success?
raymillr, Cincinnati, OH

Mr. President, if cutting green house emissions are such a high priority in your agenda, why not continue government support for bringing the next gen nuclear power plans on line. This technolgy is ultra clean and would create numerous jobs.
jrgarne, monterey, ca

We’d recommend you go make your voice heard, and ask your questions. If you like these questions and ones like them, go vote them up. The President will answer some of the most popular questions on Thursday, so submit questions and vote soon to make your voice heard!

By Jarret Adams

Recently AREVA has been the subject of some attacks by members of anti-nuclear organizations. Here is our basic response:

While some may have a quasi-religious or professional obligation to oppose nuclear energy, I would invite anyone who is curious about the issue to research it on your own and come to your own conclusions.

America’s nuclear power plants are important sources of carbon-free generation and produce 20 percent of our electricity. Nuclear power also represents nearly three-quarters of our emission-free generation; most of the rest comes from hydropower.

Expanding nuclear power can make one of the largest contributions to preventing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of any initiative under way in our country.

For people for whom it is their full-time jobs it is to attack nuclear energy, it is not surprising to see such a vitriolic attack against our company, which employs 6,000 hardworking people in the United States and 75,000 around the world. 

It is also important to note that AREVA also is a leading producer of smart grid applications which make electricity distribution more efficient and have a rapidly growing renewable business in the biomass sector and producing offshore wind turbines.

It would take a long time to address each inaccuracy or misrepresentation that has appeared recently, but would like to address at least one regarding the La Hague recycling facility in France.

Protecting the environment is a priority for us in all of our operations. Because of concerns regarding La Hague, we have set up real-time environmental monitoring on our website. Check it out for yourself: http://www.lahague.areva-nc.com/.

We welcome visitors to our facilities in the United States and elsewhere, so people can draw their own conclusions about our environmental commitments.

by Jarret Adams and Gilles Clement

Rob Inglis at The New Republic‘s Energy and Environment blog, among others, suggested recently that recycling nuclear fuel is too costly to pursue in the United States and that closing the fuel cycle would have little effect on the demand for repository space. We at AREVA believe that recycling can make economic sense and can significantly reduce the volume and toxicity of the waste that must be emplaced in a permanent repository.

1. Recycling Is Not Too Costly

In 2006, the Boston Consulting Group performed a study with input from AREVA concluding that with uranium at $31/lb of U3O8 ($80/kg) the cost of recycling was roughly equivalent to that of direct disposal, assuming repository costs of $700/kg of nuclear material for disposal.

This study was based on the actual figures from existing commercial used fuel recycling plants in Europe. Whereas, previous studies were based upon assumptions or data derived from nuclear weapons complex operation which are not applicable. The cost of recycling is offset by the sale of recycled fuel, specifically mixed oxide (MOX) fuel and fuel made of reprocessed uranium. In addition, much less repository space is required, about one-fourth to one-fifth of the volume remains after recycling.

Today, the long-term price of uranium is about $60/lb of U3O8 and the expected cost of Yucca Mountain repository is about 900$/kg of material for disposal. Hence, recycling makes even more economical sense today, and trend will likely not reverse as worldwide uranium demand grows and uncertainties regarding repository costs increase.

2. Recycling Does Reduce the Need for Additional Repository Space

Recycling does not eliminate the need for a final repository. But it does indeed offer the potential to reduce significantly the volume of waste for disposal. As we have pointed out several times here, recycling can reduce the volume by a factor of at least four and toxicity by a factor or 10.

Used MOX fuel will not be sent for direct disposal. A sustainable recycling strategy is based on recycling all used fuel, including MOX fuel. The recovered material will be recycled in the current or next generation of reactors. This is why recycling reduces the demand on repository space. Recycling nuclear fuel can postpone perhaps indefinitely the need for additional repositories.

Heat is a driving issue for waste storage, but the vitrified waste (the advanced waste packaging that contains the recycling byproducts) can be stored safely until it is ready for disposal. Because all useable material has been removed for recycling, the remaining material requires only limited safeguards. The durability of vitrified glass logs in the repository containers is that of natural volcanic obsidian rock (which is at least 300,000 years).