As an established provider of offshore wind turbines, AREVA applauds Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s approval of the United States’ first offshore wind park.

“The Cape Wind offshore wind project is a long-awaited first for this country,” said Anil Srivastava, President of AREVA Renewables, “and we congratulate them and Interior Secretary Salazar for achieving this milestone in establishing a new renewable energy industry.”

AREVA fully supports this important step forward in realizing the Obama administration’s support for tapping a significant, carbon-free energy source. AREVA encourages the administration to further energize the offshore wind industry by streamlining the permitting process and maintaining current investment and production incentives.

“This approval is significant today for many people,” said Jean-Paul Crouzoulon, Vice President of AREVA Renewable Inc. “Offshore wind developers now see a way forward to building this domestic industry. Offshore wind component manufacturers, like AREVA, have more confidence to make the necessary investments to develop domestic supply chain relationships to serve the market.”

“With the federal government’s continued leadership,” added Crouzoulon, “this will happen sooner than later.”

Through its subsidiary company Multibrid, AREVA manufactures the first 5 MW wind turbine specifically designed for withstanding harsh offshore environments.

“For the sake of our economy, our security, and our environment, America must develop decisive policies that will allow us not only to compete in this clean energy race, but to become the leader in providing clean energy technology to the world.”

-Energy Secretary Steven Chu speaking yesterday at the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.

For our part, AREVA is already making direct economic investments to build critical clean energy infrastructure in America, including some $250 million in the development of the U.S. EPR™ reactor, AREVA Newport News, Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility, and renewable energy sources like biomass and concentrated solar.

We understand that questions remain about the potential for nuclear energy to provide emissions free energy for America’s future.

The 2010 C-Span Student Video Competition winner, ‘I’ve got the power’ looks at what is going to meet the challenges America’s growing energy demand. The video, produced by Wisconsin middle school students, Madison Richards, Samantha Noll, and Lauren Nixon, explores the potential for nuclear energy to be part of the solution.

We would like to congratulate the students on their efforts to create this thought-provoking video. Well done!

Today AREVA and the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group announced another important step toward building the nation’s most advanced Clean Energy Park to region near Fresno, California. AREVA and FNEG signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to develop the country’s most advanced Clean Energy Park in the state’s San Joaquin Valley.

read more…

A recent piece on the New York Time Green Blog, by Matthew L. Wald, explains the health science behind Tritium. “Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen that occurs naturally yet is also created in reactors. It is almost always incorporated into a water molecule like an ordinary hydrogen atom and is therefore impossible to filter out, and readily absorbed by the body. But it is also quickly excreted from the body, as ordinary water is, which limits the dose.”

So why do public concerns remain? As radiation expert, Dr. John E. Till noted during a recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission panel of experts meeting, “I’m surprised to be here based on what we know about the science of the material. But on the other hand, the perception of tritium as a potential rise in the environment to the public is huge; it is absolutely huge.”

For the nuclear energy industry, managing and removing the potential for threats is a way of life. Safety is the number one priority for the most regulated industry in the world with every aspect analyzed and measured to ensure the highest measure of quality.

But this high level of regulation is not the reason or motivation behind nuclear industry’s record as the safest energy industry in the United States. It has everything to do with trust.

Because of the inherent risk (sometimes incorrect assumptions about the effects of radiation) and potentially unseen dangers, everyone involved in the nuclear energy industry knows that trust of the community is an utmost priority. Providing 20 percent of the nation’s energy (and 72 percent of its carbon free energy) means nothing if there is a fear that the industry is not doing everything possible to operate safely.

That is why, in addition to further education on what tritium is and its potential effects on the environment, AREVA is reaching out to let you know that the industry is working to do more.

AREVA, for its part, has designed several tools to minimize the possible risk associated with tritium making its way into the environment. AREVA has developed and successfully employed a process that reinforces the layer of protection to the reactor liner in more than 40 plants worldwide. In addition, AREVA has improved its nuclear fuel design by integrating materials that reduce the potential production of tritium.

Because we know every effort must be taken to prevent potential risk.

In a special blog post on The Energy Collective earlier last week, Tennessee Senator Lemar Alexander reflected on the environmental concerns discussed during the first Earth Day 40 years ago.

Pointing out that initial focus was on the state of the planet and various kinds of pollution, he recalls how during “the first Earth Day and that is that, at the time, the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations were supporting nuclear power.  In fact, nuclear energy was regarded as a savior to our environmental dilemmas.  It cleaned the air of pollution and didn’t take up a great deal of space.”

Alexander explains why anyone would consider nuclear energy as a green energy source:

“The main thing is its tremendous energy density.  The Nature Conservancy took note of this last August in their paper on “Energy Sprawl.”  The authors looked at the amount of space required to produce energy from the various technologies – something no one had ever done before.   They came up with some remarkable findings. 

Nuclear turns out to be the gold standard.  You can produce a million megawatt-hours of electricity a year – that’s the standard they chose – from a nuclear reactor sitting on one square mile.  That’s enough electricity to power 90,000 homes.”

A post from Senator Kerry in the Earth Day spirit could also be found on the Energy Collective calling for Americans “to force Congress to pass climate and energy legislation, the comprehensive stuff not the weak tea…

And here’s what I’m saying and what we need you to demand: this is the way to transform our energy economy – put Americans back in control of our energy production – instead of sending so much of our money to oil-rich regimes around the world (yes, $100 million every day to Iran!)  – and creates millions – millions – of the clean energy jobs that can power our economy in the next century.”

Both of these posts have one clear message: clean energy solutions, including both nuclear energy and renewables, are a must for America.

Thanks to everyone who signed up for the Energizing Earth Day initiative. This included well over 200 individuals and organizations that have pledged their support for clean energy, including nuclear energy and renewables, as a way to protect our environment and our planet.

Even through Earth Day 2010 has come and gone; there is still time to sign up. We will keep the site live for a little while longer so a few more can sign up. Also, please remember the Climate Rally will be held on the National Mall on April 25, where people can express their support for more clean energy as a way to control greenhouse gases.

Also a special thanks to artist Suzanne Hobbs of PopAtomic Studios who supplied the dedicated art for Energizing Earth Day and to author and environmentalist Gwyneth Cravens who wrote a series of special blog posts for our Earth Day coverage at the AREVA North America Blog.

We also would like to thank the following organizations for their support:

• ADAGE
• Constellation Energy
• Dewey Square Group
• Duke Energy
• EDF Inc.
• Energy Northwest
• Grow Idaho Falls
• Idaho Falls Power
• Idaho National Laboratory
• Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding
• Nuclear Energy Institute
• Pew Center on Global Climate Change
• UniStar Nuclear Energy

Best regards,

Jarret Adams

By Tom DePonty, Director of Public Affairs, ADAGE

Is there a 21st Century clean energy opportunity stored in our nation’s forest land? In Mason County, Washington, the answer is, “Yes!”

For over 150 years the communities in Mason County, Wash., have sustainably managed their abundant natural resources for lumber and forestry industries. After harvesting an area, the remaining wood residue goes unused and is left on the ground or pushed into “slash piles” and burned according to current forest management practices.

We have another idea.

ADAGE LLC, a bioenergy joint venture between AREVA and Duke Energy, would like to take that clean wood residue and convert it into electricity with a modern biomass power plant. The new plant will create more than 750 direct and indirect jobs during construction, 200+ direct and indirect jobs during operation, and 55 megawatts of electricity.

And this is not your grandfather’s biomass plant. The proposed modern facility is the difference between an old four-cylinder clunker and a new hybrid vehicle. This plant brings together the best available technology at every step of the process, from John Deere’s new low-impact bundler and the facility’s high efficiency boiler to the advanced emission controls and the water conservation processes.

For example, this power plant will produce some of the lowest emission rates of any biomass project in the U.S. and is equipped with a real-time continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMs) to ensure the plant operates well within all state and federal air quality standards.

Another benefit is the need for sustainable forest management to provide fuel for the plant. The proposed plant only runs on clean wood biomass collected after forestry operations thin or harvest the mature trees. The Washington State University Biomass Inventory estimates 2.4 million green tons of clean woody biomass are produced each year in Mason County and nearby Grays Harbor County. The ADAGE biomass plant would convert 600,000 green tons per year of this material into electricity.

So what was once an unused resource, I now see as an opportunity for Mason County to be a leader in the renewable energy industry, while protecting public health and creating jobs through modern clean energy processes.

I enjoyed speaking with the residents that attended our two Open Houses in Shelton, Wash., earlier this month and look forward to continuing the conversation and working together on this project. Comment here on the blog or send an email to info@adagebiopower.com.

by Gwyneth Cravens
CravensPowertoSavetheWorld.com

As I looked out the window, and I saw the sun coming up and the curvature of the Earth, I thought, “Wow. The Earth is round.” But when I saw it with my own eyes, it meant something different to me. And looking at the Earth’s atmosphere and seeing how thin it is, you realize the Earth is a very fragile planet.
—Eileen Collins, space-shuttle commander

In a microcosm, Earth Day, 1970, had the effect of creating a community out of a New York City block full of isolated strangers. All over the country similar small miracles occurred. What had been an ignored commons was transformed and so, for a time, were we. Now it’s more evident than ever that what happens to the atmosphere or the ice caps and glaciers on one part of the globe becomes everyone’s problem. The increasing droughts in some areas due to temperature rise are putting dust in the lungs of children thousands of miles away. China’s smog drifts to California. We can’t survive as isolated, self-regarding entities. We’re linked to the destiny of all humans and the destiny of the earth, as Stewart Brand foresaw when he searched for a visual way to express that truth. Our personal destinies, and the destinies of our children, grandchildren, and remote descendants are intimately linked to choices we make today.

The environmental movement, misinformed, with good but terribly misguided intentions, scared the public about nuclear power. Nuclear plants that had been planned were not built. Others were shut down. My fellow protestors and I wanted the Shoreham nuclear plant closed, and it was. (As a result, almost all of Long Island’s electricity now comes from fossil fuels—mostly dirty, deadly diesel.) But anti-nuclear activists did not cause the hiatus. Problems abounded in the fledgling nuclear industry – cost overruns, increasingly longer construction times, lack of experience with the new technology among private-utility operators, and in some instances a lack of a safety culture. For all these reasons, we kept burning more coal and gas when a far better option, if wisely employed, was available. And in fact many American nuclear plants have been run very well, quietly and efficiently providing cheap electricity that otherwise would have come from burning coal.

When I began my nuclear journey I didn’t know about base-load electricity—the steady flow that reliably meets the minimum demand at all times. I thought we could get all the power we needed from wind, sunlight, conservation and efficiency. These all are useful, but the fact is that base-load comes from only a few sources: fossil fuel combustion (about 75%), hydroelectric dams (about 6%), and nuclear power (20%). Of these, nuclear power is the only clean, readily expandable resource and has the smallest environmental footprint. To reduce carbon emissions, fossil fuel plants must be replaced whenever possible with nuclear plants. We’re accustomed to thinking of them as gigantic, but in fact reactors actually come in a variety of sizes and can be adapted to a variety of needs. (The Nuclear Navy has demonstrated the flexibility of reactors. After the earthquake in Haiti, a nuclear aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Carl Vinson, came to the rescue. Process heat from the ship’s reactor enabled the desalination of 400,000 gallons of seawater a day to keep people alive.)

Climate scientists use probabilistic risk assessment methodology to analyze climate change. Reactor scientists use the same methodology to determine reactor and fuel-cycle safety. So why do some people in the technical community remain skeptical of climate-change science, which is derived from a vast body of data and which is supported by nearly 100% of climatologists? And why do those in the environmental community who are convinced of climate change because of the science want to limit or obliterate nuclear power? There are good reasons that high-profile climatologists like James Hansen campaign for more nuclear plants.

No matter what our opinions, we all are participating in the huge release of carbon into the atmosphere with every keystroke, every flip of the switch in our households, every purchase of a doodad from China. Ocean acidification, destroyer of oxygen-producing marine life, and the rapid rise in the average global temperature will not wait while we argue about which side is right. It’s time to drop all that and become more conscious of our shared destiny.

We need to listen to one another. I look forward to a time when nuclear engineers routinely participate in Earth Day and understand that they in fact comprise the leading edge of the environmental movement. Because of my own experience about prejudices I harbored because of wrong information, I’d like to see every anti-nuclear activist tour a nuclear plant and learn about the extraordinary scientific, humanitarian, earth-friendly feat occurring within its sturdy walls. I encourage people on both sides of the debate to examine their biases and to help others make the transition from myth to science-based fact.

The power to save the world does not like in rocks, rivers, wind, or sunshine. It lies in each of us.

Gwyneth Cravens is the author of Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy and has written articles on science and other topics for The New Yorker, Harper’s, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other publications.

by Gwyneth Cravens
CravensPowertoSavetheWorld.com

Yesterday I mentioned some beliefs I once held:

• Manmade radiation is far more dangerous than natural radiation—cosmic radiation, for instance.
• Even a tiny speck of manmade radioactive material can kill you.
• Radiation from a nuclear plant can travel hundreds of miles and kill you.
• Nuclear plants are just ticking atomic time bombs. Without warning they can explode and kill millions and cause cancer, and mutations. The Chernobyl accident killed tens of thousands of people.
• Nuclear plants could easily be taken over by a few gunmen and the fuel in the reactor stolen and turned into an atomic bomb.
• The people who work in the nuclear field are indifferent to humanity and to the environment.
• A coal-fired plant is safer than a nuclear plant any day.
• Nobody knows what to do with nuclear waste. Mountains of it are piling up everywhere. It lasts forever and will turn huge tracts into radioactive wastelands.

This list of problems seemed to me a deal-breaker for nuclear power as an environmental savior. (I believed the information to be true because it had been told to me repeatedly by organizations responsible for good works, like saving whales and cleaning up birds caught in oil slicks.) And was Rip Anderson-the scientist who told me that if we were going to protect humanity and ecosystems from devastation we needed nuclear power–aware of its dangers? I knew nothing of his day job, which turned out to be leading the team that got the country’s first permanent, deep-geologic, nuclear waste repository, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, certified by the EPA and opened. I soon discovered that he was an expert in probabilistic risk assessment. He listened patiently to my concerns, and carefully explained that they lacked scientific basis. He introduced me to his colleagues—experts in physics, engineering, radiation biology, microbiology, radiology, epidemiology, geology, risk perception, and other endeavors—and he suggested I see for myself what went on in the nuclear world. That’s how the Nuclear America Tour began.
read more…