By Jarret Adams

Over at the Huffington Post today, Carl Pope of the Sierra Club has dished up another attack on the economics of nuclear energy that goes light on the facts and heavy on the rhetoric. Contrary to Mr. Pope’s wishes, nuclear energy’s revival already is well under way with more than 50 new plants under construction worldwide. More than 20 of these new reactors are being built in China alone.

The main question is whether Americans will see past the constant flood of disinformation about nuclear energy and support the revival as other industrial nations have done. In fact, nuclear energy is by far America’s largest source of electricity that does not produce greenhouse gases.

While new nuclear plants are expensive, the cost of electricity generated by these facilities over 60 year is relatively inexpensive. Once these costs are amortized, the operating costs of nuclear plants (at about 2 cents/kwh) are well below natural gas (at 5 cents/kwh) and even lower than coal.

Nuclear energy also has an excellent safety record in the United States. In fact (another fact), it is safer to work in the nuclear industry than in manufacturing, according the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Regarding ability to withstand hurricanes, the Gulf region nuclear plants withstood Hurricane Katrina without sustaining any significant damage and were among the first major power generation back online after the storm.

We at AREVA fully support renewable energy as another way to produce low-carbon electricity, especially if we are talking about our state-of-the-art offshore wind turbines, concentrated solar power, and advanced biopower facilities.

Why does Mr. Pope trash nuclear in an effort to promote renewables? In actuality, nuclear energy and renewables are complementary – a combination of the two is the best near-term way to remove CO2 emissions from our electricity grid. And why does he put in a plug for low natural gas prices?

We noticed with some surprise, this article in the Washington Post this week.. It reports: “Utilities across the country are building dozens of old-style coal plants that will cement the industry’s standing as the largest industrial source of climate-changing gases for years to come.”

In short, the article documents that a wave of at least 15 new coal plants will be produced in the U.S., this “despite growing public wariness over the high environmental and social costs of fossil fuels, demonstrated by mine disasters in West Virginia and the gulf oil spill.” This is the largest expansion of coal plants in two decades.

The short-term financial gain of building cheap fossil plants doesn’t have a “clean coal” solution anywhere in sight either as “widespread application of carbon-neutralizing technologies for coal plants remains at least 15 to 20 years away.” The article specifically goes into the hidden long-term costs this will bring as these new plants would “generate about 125 million tons of greenhouse gases annually, according to emissions figures from utilities and the Center for Global Development. That’s the equivalent of putting 22 million additional automobiles on the road.”

And by way of comparison, an AREVA EPR nuclear plant would avoid about 10 million tons of CO2 per year each year from being emitted into our air.

Everyone should definitely go check out David Bradish’s excellent posting at the progressive political blog Dailykos… Here is an excerpt:

Last week here at Daily Kos, the Nuclear Information Resource Service published an ill-informed essay composed of inaccuracies and wild assumptions about the Calvert Cliffs 3 (CC3) nuclear project. The NIRS essay argues that the CC3 project suffers from a flawed economic model and concludes that all U.S. nuclear power projects and others worldwide are therefore also doomed to failure.

Unfortunately, much of what the essay lacked is a basic understanding that building and operating power plants is a business that depends on a number of wide-ranging market forces….

On the subject of Department of Energy Loan Guarantees, Bradish points out:

If there’s any facet on new reactor development the NIRS essay couldn’t get correct (or deliberately twisted), it was loan guarantees. Throughout much of the essay, NIRS referred to the financing of the CC3 project as 100% taxpayer guaranteed. This is a distortion. In order to receive a loan guarantee, a company has to contribute at least 20 percent of its own cash (equity) to the project. 

Another point to make clear, loan guarantees are not a handout. The program is designed to provide an additional guarantee from the U.S. government to encourage investment in innovative, new energy facilities, including nuclear power plants. The loan guarantee program does not involve an outlay of taxpayer funds. The cost of the program is borne by the companies seeking the loan guarantees, not taxpayers. Taxpayer money is used only in the case of default, which is why creditworthiness and a solid project plan are so important.

Discussing the attacks on the EPR design, he reiterates that:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission asked Areva for more information on the EPR’s computer systems. Based on this, the NIRS essay claimed that because the NRC has unresolved questions about the design of the EPR, the reactor is unsafe. This is a textbook example of a flawed argument known as jumping to conclusions. Questions from the regulator are all part of the licensing process and contribute to ironing out reactor design issues before construction begins.

The back and forth work with the NRC is what makes the nuclear industry one of the safest in the world. AREVA recognizes and appreciates the need for a comprehensive and independent review by the regulator, in each country, where our systems are licensed and deployed.  Based on AREVA’s worldwide experience, we are flexible and well-prepared to adapt designs and implement solutions to address particular regulatory concerns.

But let’s not forget that AREVA is already building four reactors globally and these achievements and lessons learned will only benefit reactor construction, quality and delivery in the United States. AREVA is ready to build the first U.S. EPR™ reactor and bring along with it carbon-free energy generation and thousands of jobs and investment to the United States.

This post is a great, fact based and clear headed refutation of the NIRS essay, and fully worth you reading, and the clicking the “recommend” button on the right side column. Also, don’t forget to vote in the poll David put in the bottom of the article…

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission held a public meeting in Boise, Idaho, on Aug. 9 to hear from the public, elected officials and other stakeholders on the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility under development near Idaho Falls. The NRC held this meeting in Boise at the behest of a Boise-based antinuclear group in addition to a previously scheduled public forum in Idaho Falls on Aug. 12.

AREVA welcomes these opportunities in Boise, Idaho Falls and elsewhere to allow people to learn more about the Eagle Rock project. We are developing a state-of-the-art uranium enrichment facility using proven, reliable and safe technology to produce fuel for commercial nuclear power plants.

Representatives for several elected officials, including Idaho Gov. C. L. “Butch” Otter, members of the Idaho delegation and others expressed their support for the Eagle Rock project at the Boise meeting. Also many members of Idaho’s business community praised the positive economic impact the project would have, including the creation of thousands of jobs. Others expressed concerns about the potential environmental impact of the facility. While views ran the spectrum, this well-run meeting by the NRC offered a good opportunity for stakeholders to learn more about the project.

“AREVA is excited to be a part of Idaho’s business community, and we look forward to continuing our work with the state and the people of southeastern Idaho,” said Bob Poyser, vice president of regional affairs at AREVA. “We plan to build and operate a safe, environmentally sustainable, world class facility that is important to America’s energy security, important to our American utility customers and important to the advancement of Idaho’s continued leadership in nuclear programs.”

Click here for more information on the Eagle Rock project.

In an opinion piece that appeared in the Washington Post today, Slate columnist, Nina Shen Rastogi asks “What are nuclear energy’s green credentials?”

And after discussing the issues, Rastogi concludes:


“The Lantern doesn’t find herself particularly freaked out by atomic energy. The long-term waste conundrum seems more pressing: After all, isn’t the notion that you don’t bequeath problems to your descendants a major tenet of environmentalism? At the same time, global warming is itself a dire legacy, and every energy technology has its pitfalls. So if nuclear power can play a role in cooling our planet, the Lantern thinks it deserves to stay on the table.”

Find more of Rastogi’s anaylsis here.

In a recent piece by the Christian Science Monitor, “Global Warming Heats up a Nuclear Energy Renaissance,” the article examined the American context energy and why nuclear power is an attractive option.

One key point mentioned is that the majority of the general American public views nuclear energy positively, now more than ever.

“Public and political acceptance of nuclear power as a logical large-scale alternative to fossil fuel is higher than it has been in a generation. Once mainly associated with mishaps like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl – not to mention bumbling nuclear plant worker Homer Simpson – the energy source now has support from 62 percent of Americans, a Gallup Poll found in March. That’s the highest since Gallup began asking about the topic in 1994.

Even former foes like Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog and an alternative-energy crusader, and Mark Udall, a member of the Udall family Democratic political dynasty that has stewarded natural resources, are rethinking the nuclear energy option. They’re influenced more by the immediately tangible environmental consequences of greenhouse gases than by possible radiation disasters.”

A recent survey on the public view of nuclear energy, “Perspective on Public Opinion,” June 2010, shows that Americans are more supportive of nuclear energy than they have been in decades. The survey results note that “Three out of four Americans say they favor nuclear energy. The long-term transformation in public opinion on nuclear energy is striking: Those in favor moved from 49 percent in 1983, when the question was first asked, to 74 percent today. Those who “strongly favor” nuclear energy now outnumber those who are “strongly opposed” by more than three to one—33 percent strongly favor compared with 10 percent who are strongly opposed.”

There are many variable that have contributed to these growing acceptance rates including baseload energy generation without carbon emissions, ability to create jobs and economic growth, and provide a domestic source for greater energy independence.

If you have not read it yet, we would like to spotlight the new blog by the U.S. Department of Energy. With the kick-off post from Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, he describes how the blog is “a first for us and part of our commitment to achieving the level of transparency, engagement, and accessibility that you should expect from your government.

Find more posts at blog.energy.gov.

On his Weekly Washington Update, Virginia Representative Rob Wittman discussed his recent visit to the AREVA Newport News facility under development in Newport News Virginia. As part of a joint venture with Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, AREVA is working to construct a facility that will manufacture the heavy components for nuclear power plants. More information on this project here.

“Last week I also had the opportunity to visit AREVA Newport News, a company that manufactures components for nuclear power plants.  AREVA partnered up with Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding to build a fantastic facility that will create over 250 private sector jobs on the Peninsula.  This is great news not only for the Hampton Roads economy, but also for our energy security. 

Nuclear power is clean and affordable, and it should be an important part of our comprehensive energy policy.  With so many concerns about clean air and greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power is a safe and reliable carbon emission free source of electric power.  Many countries are rapidly developing their nuclear industries, including China, which is expected to complete 22 nuclear energy reactors this year and has plans for over 100 additional reactors in the near future. The United States, on the other hand, hasn’t ordered a new reactor since 1978.

Currently, about one third of Virginia’s electricity is supplied by nuclear power, and our energy demands are expected to significantly increase in the next few decades.  I believe that in order to meet these challenges, we need a comprehensive energy policy that relies on American-made resources, including nuclear energy, natural gas, oil, coal, and renewable and alternative sources such as wind and solar power.  Nuclear energy is a reliable source of electricity, both environmentally and economically, and I enjoyed the opportunity to visit the folks at AREVA Newport News who are making this power source a reality.”
 
Check out images from the visit.

AREVA is the industry leader in development and implementation of digital Instrumentation and Controls (I&C) systems for existing nuclear power plants as well as new plants being constructed and licensed. We recognize and appreciate the need for a comprehensive and independent review by the regulator, in each country, where our systems are licensed and deployed. Based on AREVA’s worldwide experience, we are flexible and well-prepared to adapt designs and implement solutions to address particular regulatory concerns.

The press release issued today by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is a normal and expected part of the design certification process, and AREVA already has begun addressing the issues raised in the communication. In fact, these issues already have been widely discussed in the media and are old news. We do not expect this issue to have a significant effect on the development of U.S. EPR technology in the United States.

AREVA has already proactively identified design modifications to address many NRC questions, and is conducting work on a priority basis to implement those changes to facilitate timely NRC review in support of the design certification. Initial NRC feedback is positive regarding these proposed changes.

In a very limited set of areas, AREVA has stated its desire to maintain the design for enhanced safety and reliability, but is evaluating recent NRC feedback to determine what additional information could be provided to address NRC questions.

AREVA continues in its commitment to open and transparent communication with NRC and will keep them apprised of our plans and progress, to support a predictable and timely design certification review.

By Jarret Adams

An editorial in today’s Washington Post urges the government, “Don’t let politics drive a nuclear-waste decision,” a wise bit of advice given the current state of America’s nuclear waste management strategy. It points out the difficulty faced by the Blue Ribbon Commission in making a recommendation on the nation’s nuclear waste management policies when its charter makes it difficult for this panel to do so.

So far, the Obama administration has been vocal about its commitment to alternative energies. In January, it created a commission to rethink the nation’s nuclear policy. But this broad reevaluation rings hollow when it is accompanied by taking off the table the one storage site into which the government has poured $9 billion and more than 20 years of research and planning – without even seeing whether it meets the NRC’s licensing standards.

Whether the government decides to revive the Yucca Mountain project is not the main issue. We will need a repository regardless of the waste management strategy we employ.

However, the editorial falters when it claims that recycling will not reduce the amount used fuel that needs to be stored. In fact, recycling using current technology would divide by at least four the volume of waste that must go to repository. And this waste will be 10 times less toxic than used fuel that has not been recycled. (The Post was correct on this point.)

For more information on the potential for recycling as part of America’s strategy for managing used nuclear fuel, click here.