AREVA EPR reactor under construction in Finland

by Jarret Adams

Today’s New York Times contains an article that presents a clearly unbalanced report of the progress of the AREVA EPR™ reactor under construction at Olkiluoto, Finland. The article includes several inaccuracies and mischaracterizations all in the pursuit of the writer’s foregone conclusion, albeit posed as a question, “Is the Nuclear ‘Renaissance’ Fizzling?” Such is the title of the blog post accompanying the article. The print version bears the title, “Not So Fast, Nukes,” and the online version, “In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble.” Given these titles, one would not expect a charitable account of the nuclear revival now under way.

Well, from our perspective, the nuclear renaissance is going just fine, thank you.

Despite a global recession, AREVA increased sales in 2008 by more than 10 percent and grew its order backlog by more than 20 percent. We continue to negotiate new deals for EPR™ reactors and other AREVA products and services with customers around the globe.

We recognize that as with any first-of-a-kind project, there is bound to be a learning curve. We are learning much from the EPR™ reactor under construction in Finland and will apply this experience to future projects around the world. At our second EPR™ project in France, we’ve already implemented many of the improvements we’ve learned from the Finland project.

Before construction begins in earnest on the first EPR™ reactors in the United States, AREVA will have completed several others internationally. The success of the Olkiluoto project will not be measured on timetables alone but also on the quality of the product delivered.

In fact, the growing interest in new reactors and other aspects of the nuclear energy infrastructure worldwide suggests the nuclear renaissance is picking up speed.

In North America, we are very committed to a revival of nuclear energy. We are making investments such as a heavy component manufacturing facility in Newport News, Va., and a uranium enrichment facility in Idaho. We also are hiring hundreds of engineers at locations in Lynchburg, Va., and Charlotte to develop the U.S. EPR™ technology. These U.S. EPR™ reactors will be made in America, and their construction and operation will create thousands of new jobs.

In fact, AREVA plans to hire some 12,000 new employees this year worldwide. And our competitors in the nuclear energy sector also are hiring. Today more than 30 new reactors are under consideration in the United States. This hardly paints a picture of a revival that has run “into trouble.” The nuclear energy industry is not pursuing the investments for philanthropic purposes, but because it sees legitimate business opportunities.

Finally, to a few of the mischaracterizations: the article states that AREVA “turned to” Finland for the first EPR™ reactor after having difficulty selling the reactor in France. In fact, the Finland opportunity simply presented itself first. It also states that the NRC will delay review of a license application until the design certification for the U.S. EPR™ reactor is complete. At present, review of license application is being pursued in parallel with the design certification.

In the end, one can expect more articles arguing whether a nuclear renaissance will succeed fueled by those who desperately want it not to succeed. The fact is that nuclear energy’s revival already is under way, and AREVA is at the center of it.

Frank Munger at Atomic City Underground points us to this good sign for the revival of the nuclear energy industry in the US…

The number of bachlelor’s degrees awarded in nuclear engineering rose by 10 percent last year over 2007 and was the highest recorded in 20 years, according to a new survey conducted by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education.

The number of Ph.D.’s was up by 43 percent over 2007 and up by 70 percent since 2000, and the number of master’s degrees in nuclear engineering was up by almost 15 percent in 2008, the ORISE report said.

Eric Abelquist, a vice president of Oak Ridge Associated Universities, which manages the institute for the Dept. of Energy, said the numbers are indicative of a recovering nuclear industry.

AREVA's Anne Lauvergeon, Duke Energy's Jim Rogers, and former President Bill Clinton at the Clinton Global Initiative

ADAGE LLC, a joint venture between AREVA SA and Duke Energy Company, just announced the proposed site of its first U.S. biopower plant in Hamilton County, Florida, during the annual Forest Landowners Association conference. The site, the first in a series of 50 megawatt biopower plants that ADAGE plans to develop in the United States, will use clean wood waste as fuel to produce electricity.

Not only are the ADAGE biopower plants an emerging source of renewable energy within the United States, but the Hamilton County biopower facility will also help to fuel the economy through the creation of approximately 400 jobs during construction, including 125 facility and fuel-related jobs during operation.

ADAGE has already met several key project milestones, including securing rights to the 215-acre site in Hamilton County and submitting applications for state environmental permits. ADAGE has also begun exclusive negotiations with JEA, an electric utility from the Jacksonville area, for the potential purchase of energy from the biopower plant and with The Langdale Company for the supply of wood waste to be used for the project.

While there are still several steps that need to be taken before construction work can begin, once completed, the ADAGE facility will provide clean reliable electricity to around 40,000 households in Florida. That power will be carbon-neutral, and will help meet important sustainability goals.

Stay tuned for more exciting site announcements as ADAGE continues to bring sustainable energy to the United States. Which lucky state will be next?

Back in December 2008, Lawrence E. Jones of AREVA T&D published an editorial in Smart Electric News entitled “Renewable Energy Systems, Electric Vehicles, and Smart Electricity Grids for a Carbon-Constrained World.” In that article, he lays out some of the challenges of the road ahead for the energy industry – including the need to reduce carbon emissions, the need for continued research, development, and implementation of renewable energy sources, an aging workforce, and the most crucial need – to create a 21st-century power grid that’s able to anticipate and deal with periods of heavy power usage.

The whole thing is worth a read… but here are some of the highlights:

Wind and solar power are intermittent resources and as such make it difficult to operate the power grids to which they are connected. To successfully integrate RES, electric utilities must have reliable forecast information about the quantity and availability of the power output. Thus, forecasting systems are one of the primary requirements to achieving increased penetration of wind and solar energy. The second requirement is combining the forecast information with the real-time operational data in the utilities’ control centers for decision making – both in the front and back offices. . . .

To effectively integrate large amounts of renewable power generation with existing and emerging smart power grids, there will be increasing need for modern information, communications and control technologies. But these are not the only prerequisites. There must also be investments in education and training a new work force to carry out the millions of new jobs expected to be created. Work force development must be an integral part of every country’s long term goal in order to compete in the 21st century global economy.

Jason Ribiero over at Pro-Nuclear Democrats found this great MIT lecture by AREVA’s own Thomas A. Christopher from 2007 about careers in the nuclear energy field and the challenges faced by the energy industry.

Jason also provides a great overview:

Mr. Christopher makes some enlightening points about the increasing demand year after year placed on energy producers. With only a 2 or 3% demand increase in the USA, this translates to 20-30 thousand megawatts a year, that’s 20-30 GW of power, that’s more than double all of the wind capacity that’s been added in the last 10 years! Not only do we face the extreme challenge of converting our infrastructure to emission free energy, it’s hard enough just to keep up with demand using conventional fossil fuels. For the anti-nuclear advocates out there, you need to wake up to the reality that closing even one nuclear plant will put tremendous strain to meet demand and virtually guarantee millions of tons of more CO2 emissions.

Here’s the video. It’s 1:31 long and absolutely worth the time.

by Katherine Berezowskyj

After a nuclear reactor has produced base-load, CO2-free energy, there is the matter of what to do with the left-over nuclear fuel. There are currently two options for dealing with the spent or “used” fuel. First is the direct disposal in a deep geological repository. The other option, not currently used in the U.S., is to recycle the spent nuclear fuel.

Yes, it is possible to employ the same approach used to reduce the waste of aluminum cans and paper for used nuclear fuel. And just as the recycling process keeps these materials from being thrown away in a landfill, the same is possible for recycling spent nuclear fuel. Recycling allows for approximately 96% of the spent fuel to be recovered and reused as new fuel in a reactor, thereby reducing the need for new uranium fuel by 25%.

The question then becomes, does recycling generate significantly larger quantities of waste than directly disposing of the spent fuel? The answer is yes and no because it depends on the kinds of waste, whether Low or High Level Waste. The spent fuel generated after time in the reactor is highly radioactive and is considered High Level Waste (HLW). After recycling, only a small portion, 4%, contained in the nuclear spent fuel, is not recyclable. This small portion is made into a very stable glass waste form and is classified as HLW. The metal parts of the nuclear spent fuel assembly are handled similar to HLW. Low Level Waste (LLW) on the other hand, is not highly radioactive and is produced from activities during the recycling process such as gloves, tools, and protection clothes that are used to facilitate the process.

When comparing the volume of waste changes during recycling, the volume of LLW generated is equivalent to about 2% of current LLW production in the U.S. But the LLW produced does not have the same levels of radioactivity as HLW and is able to be stored in a surface or near-surface facility. HLW is much more complicated and expensive to dispose of because it is requires burial in a repository deep underground.

As far as numbers go, recycling reduces the volume of HLW by a factor of 4-5 when compared to direct disposal of HLW. Looking at the spent fuel that comes from U.S. reactors each year, it would cut the quantity of HLW from approximately 2,000 metric tons to around only 780 cubic yards. Reducing the quantity of HLW by such a large degree can significantly delay the need to build an additional repository to hold the HLW produced in the U.S. This has the potential for a very considerable positive economic impact. Also, the recycling process significantly diminishes the waste toxicity by a factor of 10.

When it is possible to reduce the volume of HLW and drastically cut the need for complicated underground storage, why take care of it any other way?

Yesterday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told an audience that an amendment promoting nuclear power would be included in the cap-and-trade carbon bill.

The amendment would also create a DOE Clean Energy Deployment Administration, which would provide financing to “a wide range” of energy technologies, including nuclear projects. The administration’s members would be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Hoyer said the provision has “broad support among Democrats of many different political views and from many different regions.” . . .

Hoyer said nuclear power has a part in meeting American’s nuclear energy needs and he would continue to advocate “a policy of balance.”

Hoyer also floated the idea of a national commission to study spent nuclear fuel.  We’re glad this conversation is happening again at the top levels of government, and hopeful that our pioneering work on spent fuel recycling will be a part of this discussion on the future of nuclear energy in the US.

For more on CO2 emissions, see our post on March 12, 2009, “Carbon is the Enemy.”

by Laurence Pernot

There must be no taboos when we discuss nuclear energy. All issues, including the tricky ones, must be on the table. As with any large infrastructure project, nuclear energy does raise debates and will certainly continue to do so. This is good news, because no subject is off-limits regarding nuclear energy, and because debate on this subject is healthy and productive!

Whatever the technical answers are, public concerns must be taken seriously and addressed transparently. Governments must show leadership and continuity in their energy policies, and the nuclear industry must be open to public debate. We at AREVA, are open to dialogue with all stakeholders, including our opponents, in a transparent manner. Indeed, we’re convinced that through genuine dialogue and public debate, all legitimate concerns can be overcome.

Furthermore, as we need big changes now and rapidly in these challenging times, all leaders taking part in the energy debate need to help clarify and educate on the issues and set aside ideologies for the greater good of humanity. This passes by clarifying the energy mix and the benefits of each electricity generation source.

We no longer have to say “nuclear energy” with shame. It’s a solution recognized by OECD, the International Energy Agency, and other organizations as a key technology for industrialized and developing countries to win the race against climate change and meet our energy demands. Some countries have tiptoed into the race, some walking quietly and others jogging ahead. And there are those who are galloping to the gate. Whatever rhythm the United States chooses, we hope the nation will show leadership in this race.

Announced today – AREVA and USEC Inc. have signed an agreement to end their 7-year litigation concerning French enrichment services in the U.S. It also addresses USEC’s dumping allegations, which AREVA has always denied. This agreement allows AREVA to recover a sizable portion of the provisional duties deposited with the US Customs Service in connection with the dumping claim and all duties paid in connection with the additional claim of unfair subsidy practices. In addition, USEC will provide enrichment services for AREVA in 2009 and 2010. This is a win-win agreement for both parties.

Dumping is selling below the price considered at fair value. The production cost calculated by the US Department of Commerce for AREVA was above our actual cost. Accordingly, the DOC concluded that dumping had occurred.

The other claim was that AREVA received subsidies from the French state. AREVA demonstrated that this was not true. This particular case is now closed, and the duties deposited with the US Customs Services will be returned to AREVA.

As a major player in enrichment services for the U.S., AREVA is expanding its presence by filing a license application to build an enrichment facility in Idaho. The project, scheduled for completion in 2014, will bring enrichment services closer to AREVA’s U.S. customers, as well as more than $2 billion of investment in the state.

Similar to before, when we commented about Dan’s Post, we’d also want to highlight and thank Steve for his comments at Canadian Energy Issues Blog, and Rod over at Atomic Insights. We’re truly glad and lucky to have such good company in our efforts at being a constructive part of the energy blogosphere, and welcome the questions, challenges, and comments from everyone…