Anne Lauvergeon, CEO AREVA

She offered “her perspective on how to satisfy growing global energy needs while decreasing carbon dioxide emissions, protecting natural resources, and maintaining price stability and competition.”

Click here to access CFR’s site for the full-length video.

The paper posted the ten best questions and the scientists’ responses. The underlying context in every question is about energy’s role in the future. These questions of carbon reductions, energy efficiency, and needing a long term approach are critical, and they are issues that governments around the global are looking at right now.

A particularly good one, in our opinion, is question number three:

3. The world’s population is due to rise to 9 billion people. Can the planet supply the energy needed to achieve that end? From Ken Brookes

Tom Blees: Widespread predictions that energy demand will double by mid-century to meet the needs of an expected 9-10 billion humans are, I believe, too conservative. Billions of people rely on now-shrinking glaciers for much of their water supply, with many areas of the world already lacking adequate water. Increasing human numbers by 50% means that we will have to provide most of the water for some billions of people primarily with desalination, an energy-intensive process. Add to that the fact that the majority of people in the world today use a fraction of the energy used by those in developed countries, and one could easily anticipate at least a tripling of demand in developing countries as they strive to improve their standard of living.

In the book Prescription for the Planet, I explained how a doubling of energy supply could easily be accomplished by 2050 at a rate of deployment even less ambitious than the French employed as they converted to nuclear power in the 1970s and 80s. Given the ability to factory-produce fast reactors of the type described here, a concerted global effort to meet mid-century energy demands should be quite within reach. The fuel is already available and – for all intents and purposes – virtually free.

We would also add that the nuclear and renewable energy technologies available now are solutions to help meet this projected demand. Combined, these energy solutions provide reliable, CO2-free energy that can help with the combined pressure of population growth, greater access to energy, and economic expansion.

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.)

Image of U.S. EPR™

By Katherine Berezowskyj

Last week, AREVA and Fresno Nuclear Energy Group (FNEG), LLC announced that they have signed a Letter of Intent to formalize their work together in the development of a nuclear power plant project for the Fresno, California area.

This Letter of Intent means that AREVA and Fresno Nuclear Energy Group will begin cooperation on the initial development and permitting process for one or possibly two of AREVA’s U.S. EPR™ plants, beginning with the preparation of the Early Site Permit and subsequent Combined License Application to be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John Hutson, President of the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group commented how “AREVA shares our commitment to carbon-free, renewable energy; like us, they believe that nuclear is only part of the solution—AREVA is a world leader in designing wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable energy systems, as well.”

The objective of the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group is to provide an environmentally responsible source of electricity especially to develop the state’s critical agricultural industry and support wildlife preservations efforts that are so vital to the Central Valley of California.

And nuclear energy isn’t just an environmentally responsible energy option; a new U.S. EPR™ would create up to 11,000 direct and indirect jobs during component manufacturing (including AREVA’s Newport News heavy component facility in Virginia) and plant construction.  On top if this, construction and operation would also create more than 400 permanent jobs and spur billion of dollars in investment in the local economy.  When the U.S. EPR™ is up and running it would produce clean, reliable baseload electricity for more than 1.6 million homes.

For more information about this historic partnership for clean energy in California check out the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group, LLC, the U.S. EPR™ by AREVA, and official Press Release.

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.”

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.”

President Obama

Yesterday at his town hall in New Orleans, the President was asked about climate change, and he responded by reiterating his commitment to push for climate change legislation as soon as the health care debate is over.

One of his main points was that we need to increase our domestic energy production in environmentally-responsible ways – including expanding our nuclear energy sector.

“There’s no reason why technologically we can’t employ nuclear energy in a safe and effective way,” Obama said. “Japan does it and France does it and it doesn’t have greenhouse gas emissions, so it would be stupid for us not to do that in a much more effective way.”

We’re glad that President Obama is acknowledging the nuclear renaissance and recognizing the crucial role nuclear power must play in both ensuring energy security and sustainable development in the United States, and combatting carbon emissions and climate change.

It’s also important to point out that the President realizes, as we do, how important the growth of the clean energy sector could be to our economy:

“But I ultimately am convinced that we should be able to put together a package that puts people back to work, makes us more energy independent and saves our planet in the process,” he added.

Clean energy – including nuclear energy – means jobs, as we’ve pointed out. We’ve been able to keep hiring both here in the United States and around the world even while most of the economy has been in a downturn. An investment in nuclear energy is an investment in well-paying, secure, and economy-growing jobs for Americans… and we’re glad President Obama is on board with us in the crucial push for cleaner, safer, carbon-free energy.

To see a video of the question and answer, click here and go to the 5:15 mark.

David J.C. Mackay’s recent piece in the New York Times discussed a question that surprisingly few have considered amid rising concerns about future energy supplies, “Where will the world get its energy from next ─ when, inevitably, humans stop using fossil fuels?”

The Cambridge University physics professor has broken down the debate by asking:
“How much energy does our chosen lifestyle use?”
“How much land area do we have?”
“And how much could we produce, from each source, and at what cost?”

He asks these questions because to consider using only renewable energy sources to power a country, it’s necessary to know how much power that country uses relative to its size.

Mackay says that knowing how much land area is used by power sources is valuable because “almost all renewables are harvested on land, and it is possible to quantify the potential power production from renewables in exactly the same consumption: watts per square meter.”
“Countries with power consumption per unit area of more than 1 watt per square meter, like Britain, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium and South Korea, would have to industrialize much of their countryside to live on their own renewables. Alternatively, their options are to radically reduce consumption, use nuclear power and buy additional renewable power from other, less densely populated, countries.”
Mackay also describes what a portfolio of one-third wind, desert solar, and nuclear power would be:

If a country with the size and population of Britain — 61 million people — adopted that mix, the land area occupied by wind farms would be nearly 10 percent of the country, or roughly the size of Wales. The area occupied by desert solar power stations — in the case of Britain, they would have to be connected by long-distance power lines — would be five times the size of London. The 50 nuclear power stations required would occupy a more modest 50 square kilometers.

This is not to downplay the importance of renewables to meeting the future energy needs of the United States and other highly developed nations. AREVA fully supports a range of renewable generation and is actively engaged in developing biopower and offshore wind projects around the world. However, it is important to recognize different energy sources bring with them distinct requirements that cannot be ignored as options are discussed.

The rest of his article, “Illuminating the Future of Energy,” really breaks down these watts per square meter calculations for a look at renewable options.

For a look at his book, “Sustainable Energy—Without the Hot Air,” see www.withouthotair.com.

Anne Lauvergeon, CEO of AREVA

For nearly half a century, non-proliferation treaties and other multinational collaborations have helped facilitate the safe expansion of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. But some wonder whether the benefits of the so-called “nuclear renaissance” are worth the increased risks of the technology and potentially dangerous materials being used as weapons by terrorists, recalcitrant governments, and other groups that care little for the benefits of international cooperation.

AREVA CEO Anne Lauvergeon addressed these concerns in a speech to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s 2009 Conference on Nonproliferation in Washington, D.C.

Lauvergeon noted that while governments bear primary responsibility for effectively preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, the nuclear industry can and must play a critical role as well.

“We have entered a world where nuclear industry is not to be seen as part of the problem, as it could have in the past, nor as a passive actor, but as an active part of the solution,” she said.

Citing corporate policies such as AREVA’s own Values Charter, which mandates working only with customers from countries that conform to international nonproliferation norms and obligations, and the emergence of reprocessing protocols that limit access to used fuel, Lauvergeon called the international growth of nuclear energy, “a unique opportunity to promote an enhanced culture of nonproliferation.”

The key, she explained, is to promote initiatives such as an international fuel bank that would help developing nations rectify their acute energy imbalances, and a well-functioning, closed fuel cycle market that would provide enrichment and used fuel recycling services at competitive prices. Such measures, she said, would minimize any incentive for non-nuclear countries to acquire fuel recycling and enrichment facilities of their own.

Noting how AREVA has already treated more than 20,000 tons of used fuel from seven countries, “The experience shows that, under the right framework, treatment and recycling are a very good option,” said Lauvergeon.

In closing, Mme. Lauvergeon said that the ongoing nuclear renaissance offers the world “a tremendous opportunity to meeting the energy, economic and environmental needs of both developed and developing countries, for the lifetime of our children and beyond. This, without increasing the risk of nuclear weapons.”

A transcript and video of the Conference are available here.