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

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.

Kent Garber, in U.S. News & World Report, on the political support for nuclear energy, especially the second look it’s getting in the current climate legislation:

All these proposals are notable for the emerging political reality they represent. Nuclear power is low in carbon emissions, domestically generated, and it’s particularly popular in the Southeast and some Midwestern states.That means liberal Democrats, who have often railed against nuclear energy because of the radioactive waste it produces, will almost certainly have to fork over money for nuclear to win the votes for their climate bill.

Mark Flanagan of NEI is highlighting a CFR interview with Duke Energy’s CEO, James E. Rogers, in which he talks about the future of the energy industry – and the importance of nuclear energy not only for our CO2-free energy future, but also for our economy:

But the difference in the jobs is quite different, because if you’re wiping off a solar panel, it’s sort of a minimum wage type of job, [with] much higher compensation for nuclear engineers and nuclear operators. If our goal is to rebuild the middle class, nuclear plays a key role there, particularly if coal is out of the equation.

He also talks about the U.S. regaining its role as the leader in nuclear energy:

People forget that [the United States was] the innovator of nuclear energy. We developed the technologies. And what people have also forgotten is that 20 percent of our electricity comes from nuclear, and that we produce twice the amount of electricity from nuclear than any country in the world. We sit here today, not turning dirt on a single nuclear plant. [. . .] We have a competitive advantage on building nuclear, on building recycling to address the spent fuel, and that would be a great loss of opportunity if we don’t find a way to seize it and rebuild the supply.

Like Mark Flanagan said, we could spend all day highlighting great lines from this interview, but it would probably be better if you just read the interview for yourself.  You should also know that Duke Energy is teaming up with AREVA on the ADAGE joint venture focusing on the biopower sector. ADAGE was recently in the news because JEA, the energy company for Jacksonville, Florida, announced that it plans to power 40,000 homes with power generated from ADAGE’s biomass plants.  We’re proud to be working with Duke Energy and Jim Rogers, who clearly “gets it” when it comes to the future of energy generation in the U.S.

• More posts about ADAGE Biopower
• Official Website for ADAGE Biopower

Thomas Friedman

“I think climate change is real. You don’t? That’s your business. But there are two other huge trends barreling down on us with energy implications that you simply can’t deny. And the way to renew America is for us to take the lead and invent the technologies to address these problems.

The first is that the world is getting crowded. According to the 2006 U.N. population report, “The world population will likely increase by 2.5 billion … passing from the current 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion in 2050. This increase is equivalent to the total size of the world population in 1950, and it will be absorbed mostly by the less developed regions, whose population is projected to rise from 5.4 billion in 2007 to 7.9 billion in 2050.”

The energy, climate, water and pollution implications of adding another 2.5 billion mouths to feed, clothe, house and transport will be staggering….

Now, add one more thing. The world keeps getting flatter — more and more people can now see how we live, aspire to our lifestyle and even take our jobs so they can live how we live. So not only are we adding 2.5 billion people by 2050, but many more will live like “Americans” — with American-size homes, American-size cars, eating American-size Big Macs….

So either the opponents of a serious energy/climate bill with a price on carbon don’t care about our being addicted to oil and dependent on petro-dictators forever or they really believe that we will not be adding 2.5 billion more people who want to live like us, so the price of oil won’t go up very far…

Green hawks believe otherwise. We believe that in a world getting warmer and more crowded with more “Americans,” the next great global industry is going to be E.T., or energy technology based on clean power and energy efficiency. It has to be.”

Greenpeace militants yesterday boarded a ship transporting steam generators to the Olkiluoto 3 EPR reactor in Finland.

The organization’s action, taken in the run-up to December’s climate summit in Copenhagen, is a protest against nuclear energy, which it claims would harm efforts to combat climate change.

Once again, Greenpeace has attacked the wrong target – while no one claims nuclear power is THE solution, it is widely accepted as being ONE of the solutions that can help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

To quote a well-known saying, “Our house is burning and we are looking the other way.” If we apply this metaphor, then Greenpeace’s attempts to stand in the way of nuclear power is like preventing a trusted fire service from getting to the blaze.

In the United States, for example, nuclear energy is by far the largest source of CO2-free electricity production and plays a significant role in preventing additional greenhouse gas emissions.  Its role in preventing emissions is even greater in France, because the country receives roughly 80% of its electricity from nuclear energy.

AREVA is saddened that Greenpeace refuses to engage in a calmer debate on energy issues. According to AREVA spokesperson Jacques-Emmanuel Saulnier, “This buccaneering behavior is the thanks AREVA gets for opening up to this association, which for instance was welcomed just last week to its mining sites in Niger. If Greenpeace wants to find out more about steam generators, it doesn’t need to show off like this – the doors of the Chalon Saint-Marcel plant are wide open for it to come and see how these reactor components are made.”