Dan Yurman at Idaho Samizdat asks some good questions about Copenhagen, climate change issues, and nuclear power:

If you want to pursue a strategy of decarbonization, and you don’t want to sacrifice economic development goals, then the nations of the world have only one form of electricity generation for base load demand to use to make that switch in one generation. Nuclear energy is the answer. Need evidence? Take a look at what India and China are doing.
Climate change is a challenge to the survival of the human species. We created this mess and, if we don’t want to turn into crispy critters on the only planet we have, then we have also have to fix it. To use an analogy from the military, you don’t fight a war with the weapons you wish you had, you fight it with the ones you’ve got.

Al Gore can preach all he wants about renewables, but battery storage technologies to support solar and wind aren’t likely to change in the next decade or so. In short, his plan, however popular with the press and green groups, is a sure fire path to reducing economic growth if relied on as a sole strategy to achieve significant change from fossil fuels.

The nuclear energy industry has some serious challenges ahead to explain itself in these terms. On the other hand, the big U.S. utilities are realists who see uprates to nuclear reactors as being competitive responses to combined cycle natural gas plants. None of the nuclear utilities are going to commit to building a new nuclear reactor until the government stops its denial that it has an obligation to leverage the future of the industry with loan guarantees.

It will be interesting to hear what the U.S. delegation says this coming week about nuclear energy. We’re either going to get more political fig leafs or maybe some real straight talk about what it will take to reduce the growth of greenhouse gases. I’ll be listening. I hope you will too.

Germany’s Der Spiegel has a chart on their website that we think best illustrates the key role nuclear energy has to play in any climate change plan. Not only is nuclear energy baseload and reliable, but it’s also much, much less expensive:

Using AREVA’s own EPR as a baseline for the cost of nuclear energy, it’s quite clear: If we want to reduce carbon emissions responsibly, nuclear energy has to be part of the solution.

(Hat tip to Charles Barton at Nuclear Green for the link!)

A fascinating argument from Richard Lester on what it would take to meet our Copenhagen goals for the US, and in the process dramatically almost eliminate US dependence on foreign power… notably, it would include multiplying the US nuclear power infrastructure “five-fold.” Here are snippets:

When President Obama goes to the Copenhagen climate change summit next week, he is expected to once again declare that the U.S. will reduce its carbon emissions 83% by 2050….

Most anthropogenic CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels, so there are two main routes to achieving the president’s goal. First, the U.S. must reduce the share of fossil fuels—currently 85%—in the energy supply system, which includes everything from electricity generation and transportation to industrial uses. And second, Americans must use energy more efficiently…

Here is a recipe that would work: Add 30,000 megawatts of new wind turbines every year between now and 2050 (this is nearly four times what was added in 2008, a record year). Add another 35,000 megawatts of solar photovoltaic capacity annually (more than 100 times what was added last year—a record year for solar, too).

That’s just the beginning. Now multiply the nuclear reactor fleet fivefold by midcentury. Retrofit all existing coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and storage technology. And build twice as many new plants, also with carbon capture. Natural gas could substitute for coal, but only with carbon capture too. By 2050, the electric power system would be four times bigger than today. Two-thirds of the car and truck fleet would be powered by electricity, and the rest would run on advanced biofuels…

All of this would indeed reduce carbon emissions by 83%. It would also practically eliminate America’s dependence on oil imports. But could it be done?

Perhaps, though not without enormous effort. Operating a power grid reliably and economically with intermittent solar and wind resources generating 40% of the electricity cannot be done today. Carbon capture and storage has yet to be demonstrated on a large scale. Meanwhile, a still vocal group of environmentalists remains adamantly opposed to nuclear energy—even though it is the only low-carbon energy source that is both scaleable and already generating large amounts of electricity…. Yet falling short on any of these decarbonization measures would require even more of the others, or even greater energy efficiency gains…

This is a matter of arithmetic; it cannot be wished away.

As the important climate change dialogue continues in Copenhagen and throughout the world, the Washington Post has launched Post Carbon, a blog providing up-to-the-minute information about the climate change crisis and what we’re doing to combat it. This week, unsurprisingly, they’re in Copenhagen providing live updates as the climate change conference goes on.

We’re glad to see that more and more newspapers – like the Post, the Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times – are paying attention to environmental issues, climate change, and the role nuclear energy will need to play in our CO2-free energy future. We’re confident that the more dialogue, discussion, and education we have about these issues, the clearer it’ll be that nuclear power has to be part of our energy discussion as we face down the global threat that is climate change.

A number of voices online have been watching the Copenhagen conference and are bringing up the role of nuclear. We’ve rounded up a few to highlight, let us know as you see more by adding comments here, and we’ll highlight those as well.

• Michael Avari looks at the Copenhagen convention and sees a direct connection to nuclear power in a post to his blog yesterday:

  …The solution is simple and within our reach, but evidently beyond the vision of governments.  In his testimony, Cristy further stated, “And, if the Congress deems it necessary to reduce CO2 emissions, the single most effective way to do so by a small, but at least detectable, amount is through the massive implementation of a nuclear power program.  Other currently available alternatives simply cannot produce enough energy to be significantly noticed at a price and geographic scale that is affordable.”

  Nuclear power produces no CO2.  Yet, the United States produces only 19% of its power from nuclear energy as compared to France producing 86%.5  By contrast, the U.S. generates 49% of its electricity from coal—the worst offender of GHG, whereas France only 4.1%.  What did the French do right?  Steve Kidd, Director of Strategy & Research at the World Nuclear Association, answers that question succinctly with two things lacking in the U.S.: a unified national energy policy and a standard power plant design that increases safety while cutting costs….

  Reaching the same percentage of electricity production as France would cut 2.4 billion tons of CO2 from our emissions, 129% of entire amount emitted by all of transportation.  It would reduce total CO2 emissions by nearly 40%, without burdening our economy with new costs and regulations.

• Dan Yurman notes the connection between India’s commitments on climate change and their nuclear power polcies over at his blog.
• In a press release timed to draw attention to just such a connection, Constellation Energy says “Nuclear is key to Carbon Reduction.”
  

  Constellation Energy says nuclear energy plays an indispensable role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions….

  The Baltimore-based energy producer and marketer made the comments in a statement issued Monday on the climate change conference in Copenhagen.

  Constellation says nuclear energy provides about 14 percent of the world’s commercial electricity, a number that needs to increase substantially if long-term emmission reduction goals are to be met. The company also says cap-and-trade legislation and incentives can ensure a cost-effective transition to cleaner energy if done right.

• Paul Genoa, NEI’s Policy Director, blogging from Copenhagen over at the NationJournal Blog:
  

  In policies coming out of Copenhagen and subsequent international climate meetings that will shape the trajectory of clean energy job growth in the United States. By nature, clean energy technology like nuclear energy produces high quality jobs. However, absent clear, consistent and enduring clean energy support at the international and domestic level, the clean energy economy and the jobs required to sustain it will not be achieved. If we collectively meet this challenge, our children and grandchildren will inherit a cleaner world full of promise —largely due to the economic growth driven by infrastructure development.

• Finally, Charles Barton over at Nuclear Green has an excellent post about Alan Weinberg, who prophetically wrote in the 1970s about the danger posed by the CO2 emissions from building more coal-fired power plants instead of nuclear power plants:
  

  Today Weinberg’s views on CO2 and global warming seem prophetic. In a 1976 paper “Economic Implications of A US Nuclear Moratorium. 1985 to 2010,” which Weinberg co-authored with Charles E. Whittle, Alan D. Poole, Edward L. Allen, William G. Pollard, Herbert G. MacPherson, Ned L. Treat, and Doan L. Phung, reveal to us exactly how accurate Weinberg’s vision into the future was. In the paper Weinberg and his associates assessed the the economic and environmental consequences of moratorium on nuclear construction in the United States. He assumed that no new reactors would be ordered after 1980, but that reactor construction would continue till about 1985. He then looked at the consequences to allow continued operation of reactors on line by 1985. Weinberg tried to think out the implications of the cessation of new reactor construction.

  Weinberg and his associates understood that if reactor construction ceased, power companies would construct more coal fired power plants to meet consumer demand for electricity. Weinberg assumed that consumer demand would be driven by two factors population growth, and economic growth. He also assumed that technological changes would increase the efficiency of electrical use, but that these efficiencies would not offset the increase in demand.

Let us know if you find other blog posts about the importance of nuclear power as we continue the discussion at Copenhagen…

Here’s a online form to send your greetings to the Copenhagen-15 Climate Change event. Messages sent through here will be projected onto the walls of the conference.

We encourage our friends in the nuclear blogger community to send good wishes to those participating at Copenhagen and perhaps include your hopes that nuclear power could provide a vital role in member states’ goals for carbon reduction.

Starting today (Dec. 7-18), senior representatives from over 192 nations, thousands of NGO’s, hundreds of scientists, and thousands of activists are gathering for the historic 15th annual Conference of the Parties for its Framework Convention on Climate Change, or as it’s known in short, as the “Copenhagen 15 Conference.” (Or, even shorter: “COP-15″.)

The entire event is expected to bring over 34,000 individuals — including representatives from AREVA — to Copenhagen this week to engage on climate change. The goal of the event is to collectively assess progress and issues in coping with global climate change, and to work towards a new agreement that would follow the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in three years.

Most observers suggest that the practical goal of this event is to bring a “politically binding” deal across all member nations on targets for reducing their carbon output over the next several decades. This political deal would later become an official legal deal across member companies after the event.

India, China, the EU and Japan have already described their targets. For the U.S., President Obama has announced he would attend the Conference and likely bring a U.S. commitment to reduce carbon output in stages, beginning with a 17% cut by 2020.

Many feel the Copenhagen 15 event will be a pivotal point defining IF or HOW the world would take action over the next half century combating climate change.

AREVA has long been a corporate voice championing large-scale global transitions to CO2-free clean energy, and that the planet needs to ween itself off of older dirtier fuels of our past. We hope to be a vital presence at the event. And will post our thoughts and progress here.

You can follow Copenhagen tweets on Twitter under the hashtag #COP15.

We encourage our friends in the nuclear blogger community to join the many environmental bloggers following the event, blogging about it, and making their voices heard.

Some useful links:

• COP 15 general website
• US Dept. Of State Website for the event

by Jarret Adams

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland speaks at AREVA's Ohio Supplier Day

AREVA’s second U.S. Supplier Day in Columbus, Ohio, saw another capacity turnout with representatives from more than 100 companies from the state and region. AREVA held the event to find new partner companies to help supply and build U.S. EPR™ nuclear plants in the United States, including possibly one in southern Ohio, and other export opportunities around the world.

Several leading energy companies, including AREVA, formed an alliance in June to develop America’s first clean energy park project at a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) site in Piketon, Ohio. The Southern Ohio Clean Energy Park Alliance will evaluate the DOE Portsmouth site as a potential location for a new nuclear power plant. The initial focus of the project is on AREVA’s U.S. EPR™ technology.

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland kicked off the event last night with a strong endorsement of nuclear energy: “I have been pro-nuclear since before it was cool.” He added, “Frankly, if climate change is our next big challenge—and I believe it is—it is irresponsible to ignore the only source of baseload electricity that produces no carbon emissions.”

A new U.S. EPR™ project would create thousands of jobs and spur significant local investment, but such a project also would require hundreds of qualified suppliers and subcontractors. That’s the reason AREVA is holding its Supplier Days now.

“AREVA came to Ohio to look for partners to manufacture and supply the thousands of components and to build U.S. EPR™ nuclear plants that are truly ‘Made in America,’ and further realize our vision of revitalizing America’s energy infrastructure,” said Mike Rencheck, President and CEO of AREVA NP Inc. “We have been overwhelmed by the strong response to our call for partners.”

The Ohio Supplier Day is the second of our planned events; the first was held in Baltimore in November.

In an excellent editorial in The Australian, Barry Brook and Martin Nicholson, climate change scientists, make the case for nuclear power as an essential component of any climate change plan. To those who think high-profile incidents that took place twenty years ago or more make nuclear power unsafe, they talk about new safety technologies and note:

Comparing the flawed Chernobyl design to today’s reactors is like saying modern aviation is too dangerous because the Hindenburg airship exploded in 1937.

The entire editorial is really worth a read.

by Lisa Peterson

Who are we?

A few weeks ago, I introduced AREVA Federal Services as an AREVA subsidiary that works to support the Department of Energy’s projects throughout the United States. In my last blog entry, I talked about our work in nuclear waste cleanup and how we contribute to nuclear nonproliferation. In this blog entry, I will discuss AREVA Federal Services’ role and experience in nuclear energy and sciences and radioactive waste services.

AREVA Federal Services supports these projects because they promote the use of nuclear power as an energy source.

Nuclear Energy and Sciences

AREVA Federal Services actively supports projects that advance nuclear energy to develop new nuclear energy generation technologies, such as the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). The NGNP project that we support is a research and development project which consists of the research and development of the design, construction and operation of a prototype nuclear power plant. The type of nuclear power plant that this project is research is one that will be used in the near future, in the next 30 years or so.

Radioactive Waste Services

AREVA Federal Services is a leader in developing and licensing packages and handling equipment for the nuclear industry, and is instrumental in the design and licensing of many of the modern packages in daily use throughout the U.S. and around the world. The division deploys solutions to meet licensing, engineering, and maintenance challenges that packages, such as the Hanford Unirradiated Fuel Package shown below, face for permanent disposal of used fuel and high level waste.

Transportation Cask

This is just an example of some of the things we support and participate in. We do so much more! Thanks and come again!