Construction at MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility in South Carolina

A recent report from the National Center for Policy Analysis examines the growing demand for U.S. energy needs and the requirements that this energy comes from a renewable or carbon-free source.  The National Center for Policy Analysis finds in its report that “to meet this growing demand nuclear energy remains one of the safest and more reliable forms of energy available—it also emits no greenhouse gases…Nuclear power is reliable, sustainable, and clean.”

Reliable?
“Solar and wind require backup from coal, natural gas or nuclear power plants for day-to-day baseload power or for on-demand peaking power.  By contrast, the output from nuclear power plants can be adjusted based on user demand and to keep the electricity grid at maximum efficiency.”

Sustainable?
“An additional supply of nuclear fuel is readily available, after reprocessing, in the more-than-15,000 plutonium pits removed from dismantled U.S. nuclear weapons.”*

“An even larger fuel supply can be found in spent fuel rods from existing reactors.  Thus, recycling could provide an almost unlimited supply of nuclear fuel in the United State.  Recycling spent fuel would significantly decrease the problem of nuclear waste disposal.  Reprocessing can also be a boon to local communities and create jobs.”

Clean?
Nuclear power has among the lowest CO2 emissions of all energy sources.  Paul J. Meier of the University of Wisconsin analyzed CO2 emissions from various electric power sources over their entire lifecycle…Meier found that for every gigawatt hour (one billion watt hours) of electricity generated”:
-Coal emits 1,041 tons of CO2 equivalent
-Natural gas emits 622 tons
-Solar emits 39 tons
-Hydropower emits 18 tons
And nuclear power emits only 17 tons of CO2.

Check out the entire report, Nuclear Power and the U.S. Energy Future.

*(AREVA is a partner in the construction of this plant, the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility, currently being built in South Carolina to turn these warheads into fuel for a reliable power supply.)

by Laura Clise

Going into the last day of the conference in Copenhagen, AREVA Vice President of Sustainable Development and Chair of the International Chamber of Commerce Environment and Energy Committee Laurent Corbier chatted with Kai Ryssdal of the Marketplace program produced by American Public Media (their conversation aired yesterday on NPR). Laurent emphasizes that while many companies have already begun investing in a low-carbon energy economic future, “signals” from the world’s leaders that may eventually provide a consistent regulatory framework are critical to accelerating that investment.

In addition to providing low-carbon energy generation solutions, AREVA is an active member and leader in international sustainable development associations such as the International Chamber of Commerce, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Business for Social Responsibility, and the United Nations Global Compact.

The text and audio are available here.

We’ve said it before, but we’ll let someone else say it this time, “with 10 percent unemployment and a government determined to stimulate economic growth and put people back to work, what better use for our stimulus programs than building a series of nuclear facilities around the country?”

This astute statement is from a piece by Raymond J. Learsy Sunday in The Huffington Post. Learsy’s point is that nuclear energy is a clean reliable energy source—and it also means energy security, jobs, and potential economic base.

We hear much about the job-creating possibilities of new clean energy technologies. They should go forward at full speed. But in nuclear power, we have a preeminent technology being sought out by others and vast knowledge in an energy field that is that the top of the agenda for many nations in a world needing efficient and clean energy solutions. And here we are, going close to nothing in bringing about a nuclear renaissance to our own communities even when it could be at the core of dealing with climate change and a key stimulus to our labor market.

Learsy emphasizes India’s and China’s substantial commitments to new nuclear builds. These two developing countries already have dozens under construction or planned for the next 20 years, which means the United States is steadily losing its leadership in nuclear diplomacy and technological development. The change is happening, and we are falling behind.

A key factor to kick-start building U.S. energy infrastructure is to allow for used fuel recycling, as Learsy puts it:

A first and important step would be to reverse President Carter’s almost unilateral “indefinite deferral” of our plans to reprocess and recycle used nuclear fuel because of concerns that reprocessing could contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. President Carter expected other nationals to follow his lead, but they did not, recognizing Carter’s policy offered no viable path to prevent proliferation.

• More information on Recycling and AREVA’s expertise in the field

by Mary Douglas
Reprinted from AREVA Energy Business, Issue 8

Other Carbon-Free Energies

Nuclear is only one option, albeit a key one, among AREVA’s range of carbon-free energy choices. The group is developing synergistic solutions including a range of renewable energies that make sense in a balanced energy mix.

Renewable energy use is increasing worldwide. In emerging countries they supply inexpensive electricity from local resources. In Europe and North America they help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Europe has set an objective of a 20% share for renewable energies in final energy consumption by 2020, and AREVA has technologies capable of supporting that growth.

The group is currently offering its customers a portfolio of four renewable energies: wind power, bioenergy, concentrated solar power, as well as next-generation hydrogen carrier and storage solutions. Several of these have already reached technical maturity, such as wind power and bio energies. They can still be improved in terms of yield and distribution. For example, following its acquisition of 51% of Multibrid in 2007, AREVA has developed pioneering technology to become a leader in the emerging offshore wind power market.

In bioenergy, AREVA is no. 1 in turnkey solutions. The group has built over 100 operating bioenergy power units all over the world, totaling more than 2,800 MWe of installed capacity. AREVA is also reshaping the hydrogen industry by providing CO2-free Hydrogen production. These solutions enable hydrogen to be generated via electrolysis and electricity from fuel cells, with no greenhouse gas emissions.

AREVA is also developing concentrated solar power solutions, which will deliver more than 20% efficiency and grid parity.

Improving Efficiency of Nuclear Power Generation and Fuel Management

The cleanest energy is energy that is not used at all. AREVA is working to improve efficiency in both power generation and fuel supply. The aim is to maximize the availability of operating nuclear power plants to produce more energy with the same amount of fuel. It includes working to improve load factors at new reactors such as the state-of-the-art Generation III+ EPR™ reactor.

AREVA's Saint Alban plant in France

One advantage of this new generation of reactors is its fuel burn-up coefficient. Compared to the previous generation reactor, the EPR™ reduces uranium consumption by 15% for the same amount of electricity generated. In line with its commitment to sustainable development and environmental protection – by making energy more efficient – AREVA is also helping to conserve valuable resources by improving fuel management. Reusable uranium and plutonium are recovered from used fuel for recycling in nuclear reactors as MOX fuel (a mixture of the two materials) or as enriched reprocessed uranium (ERU). Using its advanced technologies, AREVA is therefore able to recycle 96% of the materials contained in used nuclear fuel which significantly reduces the volume and radiotoxicity of final waste to be disposed of. Through its recycling operation, under strict international safeguards, AREVA also supports non-proliferation objectives since used fuel is unloaded from a power plants it can be sent directly to recycling operations and MOX production, avoiding the accumulation and aging of used nuclear fuel at multiple reactor sites worldwide..

Waking to the Dangers

The world is finally awakening to the dangers of climate change, and as a global leader in solutions for CO2-free power generation AREVA is ready to offer its entire portfolio of energy solutions to solve the problems which will increasingly face its customers.

In July, leaders at G8 agreed to at least a 50% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with developed countries achieving an 80% reduction to ensure that global average temperatures do not rise by more than 2ºC above preindustrial levels.

In October, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Washington was “deeply committed” to finding a solution to climate change in the run-up to Copenhagen. “This is a fundamental trust we are about to break if we don’t act as aggressively as we can,” he told a meeting at the IEA in Paris. AREVA is well prepared to meet this challenge.

• AREVA Leads the Way in Tackling Climate Change, Part I
• Find the article on page 22 of AREVA Energy Business Magazine

by Mary Douglas
Reprinted from AREVA Energy Business, Issue 8

Climate change is a reality and some of its impacts may already be irreversible. The Catlin Arctic Survey team has found out that most of the ice in the region is first-year ice that will melt next summer. Within a decade, the North Pole will turn into an open sea every summer. Kashmir University’s geology and geophysics department says Indian Kashmir’s glaciers are melting fast because of rising temperatures, threatening the water supply of millions.

AREVA is aware of these challenges and leading the field in offering solutions for CO2-free power generation as delegates from 200 countries prepare to meet in Copenhagen in December, to hammer out a new climate agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol whose first phase ends in 2012.

With world electricity demand expected to double by 2030, alternatives to fossil fuels must be applied whenever possible to ensure a balanced and reliable energy mix. AREVA is helping to achieve these goals by offering customers a wide-ranging portfolio of both nuclear and “renewable energy” solutions.

International concern

Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change says he will be happy if the UN climate conference in Copenhagen (COP15) can deliver on “four essentials”:

• How much industrialized countrieswill reduce emissions,
• How much major developing countries will limit the growth of their emissions,
• How the help needed by developing countries to reduce emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change will be financed, and
• How that money will be managed.

Danish Minister for Climate and Energy Connie Hedegaard, incoming COP15 president, says Copenhagen is a “window of opportunity” which should not be missed. She is optimistic that after months of political stalemate key countries are now coming forward with new targets. “In that sense,” she says, “Copenhagen has already delivered results.”

Connie Hedegaard, Danish Minister for Climate and Energy

To achieve stabilisation of CO2 emissions by 2030, The International Energy Agency’s annual World Energy Outlook for 2009 divides the world into several sectors and considers policy options for each. It looks at what the power sector could achieve under “a plausible set of commitments and policies which could emerge.” The IEA suggests “much faster roll-out of renewables and nuclear including urgent investment in carbon capture and storage,” while the richest countries should “facilitate the transfer of low-carbon technologies – through international sector agreements and the purchase of carbon credits and other measures.”

This would need some $12 trillion beyond the ’business as usual’ scenario, mostly for investment in energy efficiency, modernization of transport and construction of low-carbon power generation. The cost would be offset by savings in pollution control amounting to $100 billion a year. Investment in nuclear power could be boosted by $125 billion in 2010-2020, increasing to $491 billion in the decade to 2030, says the IEA. This would be in addition to growth already planned for nuclear power and would save an extra 1.87 billion tons in emissions a year.

AREVA’s Nuclear Asset

Nuclear isn’t the only solution for clean energy generation, but there is no solution without nuclear. As world leader in nuclear power and the only company to cover all industrial activities in this field, AREVA offers solutions throughout the nuclear fuel cycle. With more than forty years’ experience, its integrated business model in nuclear power is a major asset.

AREVA’s activities encompass everything from uranium exploration, mining and processing, reactor design, construction and maintenance, expended fuel and waste management. With this unique organization the group is able to meet the needs of utilities for CO2-free power generation.

Representing about 15% of the global electricity mix, nuclear power reduces the world’s emissions by almost 10% each year, avoiding the release of some 2.1 billion tons of CO2. Installed nuclear generating capacity will double by 2030, and AREVA is working to offer reactors suited to the requirements of each country.

AREVA is also developing next-generation fuel assemblies for light water reactors and, as part of an international research program, is working on Generation IV nuclear reactors, which are expected to increase power plant yields considerably.

Look for Part II tomorrow!

• Find the article on page 22 of AREVA Energy Business Magazine

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…