Beginning on page 46 is a 12-page analysis and commentary of AREVA’s used nuclear fuel recycling process in France, including a graphic (pg. 52) summarizing the process fuel output and waste generated. This section highlights the fact that about 96% of the energy in used nuclear fuel can be recycled, and this recycling reduces by around 75% the physical amount of leftover fuel needing long-term storage. In France, both recycled uranium and plutonium are used as fuel in reactors and reliably provide the French with the lowest cost electricity in Europe without carbon emissions.

With the ongoing U.S. used nuclear fuel debate in mind, we encourage you to review the report [PDF link] and learn more about the benefits gained by implementing the complete nuclear fuel process here in the United States.

And we applaud the argument that it isn’t “nuclear vs. renewables” but that nuclear energy provides a crucial compliment to renewable energy sources as an always on backstop or “baseload” source of energy. As she put it well:

Renewable power suffers from problems of intermittency; it is very difficult to predict how much the wind will blow or how strong the sun will shine. The American electricity grid — built to connect massive, centralized, “always on” power plants to consumers — is unable to handle the unpredictability that a substantial increase in renewable power would bring. Natural gas, too, faces economic hurdles — it has a history of rapid and extreme price fluctuations that have made utilities reluctant to rely on it.

Until these problems are solved, our electricity system requires a stable, cheap source of energy to provide “always on” baseload power. The only candidates for such power in today’s energy mix are nuclear or coal power plants. We are learning that mining and burning coal provides too much danger to human health to base our electricity system on it: a new study in the American Economic Review has found that the air pollution emitted by coal-fired electricity generation is greater than the value it adds to economy. Nuclear power, on the other hand, can provide emissions-free baseload power at a low cost.

Today, a total of 104 nuclear reactors are operational around the country. They provide about 20 percent of the country’s total electricity. No other electricity source can combine the benefits of knowing that it will always be on with its affordability and its lack of emissions….This cheap, always available, zero-carbon power is an important backstop to the growth of new technologies. It can help smooth the price fluctuations that natural gas is vulnerable to and it provides the “always on” capacity that renewable power cannot.

Read the whole article here.

The full video is below; Mr. Besnainou’s comments run from 18:59 – 26:32.

Countries around the world marked the world’s population reaching 7 billion Monday with lavish ceremonies for newborn infants symbolizing the milestone and warnings that there may be too many humans for the planet’s resources….While demographers are unsure exactly when the world’s population will reach the 7 billion mark, the U.N. is using Monday to symbolically mark the day. A string of festivities are being held worldwide, with a series of symbolic 7-billionth babies being born.

Dr. Eric Tayag of the Philippines’ Department of Health said later that the birth came with a warning. “Seven billion is a number we should think about deeply,” he said.

We agree. Seven billion people — not to mention the projected growth rates from here — is a sobering statistic. As many commentators are pointing out, this accelerating population brings up important and pressing global health, housing, education, food and environmental questions.

But we also know undergirding and influencing all of these issues are the immediate questions of energy and sustainability.

Our global future requires a considered and balanced approach combining expanded renewable and nuclear energy solutions to provide and maintain steady, reliable, low-carbon power. This need is clear. How we accomplish it requires creative cooperation still hobbled by polarizing activism.

We must focus on these larger and harder questions together. We now have seven billion reasons to do so, and counting.

In a panel focused on advanced technology, the discussion focused on whether recycling nuclear fuel could provide a feasible option for the United States. David Jones, Senior V.P. at AREVA Inc. and Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council, pointed out that recycling nuclear fuel is a proven, economical and safe option for the United States to consider as a possibility for managing some of the nation’s used fuel.

“A sustainable fuel cycle is a critical building block for new nuclear energy in the United States, requiring an all-of-the-above approach to back-end implementation, not an either/or strategy. We favor more options not less,” Jones said. “Both the Council and AREVA strongly support a Federally-chartered corporation with broad authority for the management of used-fuel.”

He added that such a federal corporation, or FedCorp, would be well placed to develop interim storage facilities, but these are only part of the solution. “At AREVA, we support an evolutionary ‘pilot project’ approach that deploys current state-of-the-art recycling technology with the ability to implement advanced technologies as they are developed,” Jones said.

In a statement to the panel, Bob Gee, President of Gee Strategies Group, supported the notion that the U.S. should not wait for an ideal solution before moving ahead with those available now. He noted:

The Commission should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. I join in the recommendation being made by others that the Commission endorse a phased approach to closing the fuel cycle, which contemplates a pilot recycling facility that utilizes best available technology. With this approach, RD & D can continue to build incrementally on today’s technology, yield improved plant operating performance, and provide a platform for further progress on an advanced fuel cycle designed to meet U.S. specifications.

Other speakers at the meeting agreed that recycling should at least be available as an option for managing used fuel in the United States.

“The National Association of Neighborhoods (NAN) agrees with the BRC recommendation that we need to move forward with consolidated interim storage capacity. However, we strongly disagree with BRC that there is a need to wait for ‘new technologies to materialize’ before making a decision about reprocessing spent nuclear fuel,” said Ricardo Byrd, Executive Director of NAN.

Mervin Tano, President of the International Institute for Indigenous Resource Management, also noted his organization’s support for recycling of used nuclear fuel. “However, how the Institute comes to that view may be quite different from the logic of other proponents of reprocessing,” Tano said.

“We view the once-through paradigm as immoral and intergenerationally unjust. We think the once-through paradigm is unjust to past generations,” because it places most of the burden on communities that host uranium mines and “waste facilities.” He added that recycling is the more sustainable solution because it reduces by 25% the amount of mining required.

Other proponents focused on the positive effect that a recycling facility would have on the economy of its host community.

“A recycling facility would represent a significant investment (billions of dollars) in our future energy infrastructure, providing over 15,000 construction jobs, over 5,000 permanent jobs and thousands more indirect jobs in the surrounding communities,” said Brent Wilkes, Executive Director of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), in a written statement submitted to the Blue Ribbon Commission.

If you are there and have any of your own impressions of things, do add comments here or you can also send us those via Twitter or on Facebook.

“Virginia voters approve 71 – 20 percent of using nuclear power to produce electricity and support 60 – 32 percent the construction of new nuclear plants in the commonwealth.”

From Quinnipac University polling of Virginia voters, October 12th, 2011

Though well established and growing fast in Europe, offshore wind power has yet to get off the ground – or in the water – in the US. That’s despite the tremendous potential offshore wind holds in terms of supplying vast amounts of clean, renewable electricity to highly populated areas all along the US East, West, Gulf of Mexico and Great Lakes’ coasts.

Pike Research forecasts that investment in US offshore wind power will rise steeply over the next six years, with revenue reaching $104 billion by 2017. That’s a 56% constant annual growth rate (CAGR). They could reach as high as $130.5 billion under different assumptions incorporated in a “more aggressive scenario,” according to Pike Research’s “Offshore Wind Power” report.
Source: Clean Technica

The blog post continues, comparing the cost and benefit of offshore wind to other energy sources and concludes that “the US populace would continue to be ill-served if their government representatives do not establish fair, equitable support and incentives for developing a largely homegrown industry with such economic, social and environmental benefits and advantages.”

The full report from Pike Research is here.

Then there was also this from the Baltimore Sun, noting how Maryland is potentially a new venue for offshore wind, and is looking at exactly the type of energy questions for their power needs:

Advocates of developing offshore wind power have come to Baltimore this week with optimism that they’re creeping closer to putting the first turbines off the Atlantic coast, but worried that Washington could pull the plug on the fledgling industry just as it gets started.Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar are scheduled to open a three-day conference put on by the American Wind Energy Association.

The future of offshore wind in Maryland may ride on what happens in the next several months, as lawmakers and O’Malley aides chew over whether to ask ratepayers to subsidize offshore turbines off Ocean City or off neighboring states. Lawmakers balked at the idea last winter, tabling it for furrther study. Supporters released a pair of polls this week suggesting that large majorities of Marylanders favor offshore wind and would even be willing to pay more ($2 a month, even) to get it going.

You can read the entire story on this here.

Here is the full report, but we wanted to highlight some snippets. It highlights the challenge faced by California for it’s 2050 energy needs:

The main focus of the organization’s analysis is on the CCST Realistic Model, which assumes that total electricity demand in California in the year 2050 amounts to 510 terawatt-hours per year…

We specifically like that they see — as we deeply believe — that nuclear power is the ideal compliment to (rather than competitor) to renewable energy solutions.

“Nuclear power is a strong contender for zero-emissions energy because it can provide constant, or ‘baseload,’ power that can complement renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. While clean, many renewable energy sources produce power intermittently: if there’s no sunlight and no wind, there’s no power. However, a constant base output of nuclear power could make it much easier to deal with the highly variable power levels from renewables,” points out chairman Burton Richter. California’s law requires at least 33% of electricity generation be provided with renewable energy.

It’s a detailed and serious paper. It points out many of the challenges (many of them political) as well as the opportunities.

The paper points out that “expansion of nuclear power in California requires growth in public acceptance, which has been eroded by the Fukushima incidents. The question is will relatively low energy costs, nearly zero greenhouse gas emissions, and the need for energy reliability change this position over time?”

Read the entire paper here, and would love to hear in the comments any thoughts you have….

The pro-nuclear petition needs 5,000 signatures by 10/23 to be accepted by the Obama Administration for consideration.

The petition states,

We petition the Obama Administration to:

Educate the Public Regarding Nuclear Power.

This petition is a response to the “End taxpayer subsidies for new nuclear reactors” petition.

Due to the manufactured controversy that is the nuclear reactor meltdown in Fukushima, Japan, perpetuated by a scientifically illiterate news media, the public is unnecessarily hostile to nuclear power as an energy source.

To date nobody has died from the accident and Fukushima, and nuclear power has the lowest per Terra-watt hour death toll of any energy source known to man:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

The Obama administration should take better strides to educate the public regarding this important energy source.

Go to the “We the People” website and take action.