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.

Democratic Senator John Kerry and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham co-wrote a very important Op-Ed in the New York Times this weekend. You should definitely read the whole thing but some key snippets:

…We refuse to accept the argument that the United States cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. We are also convinced that we have found both a framework for climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect current jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce pollution….

Our partnership represents a fresh attempt to find consensus that adheres to our core principles and leads to both a climate change solution and energy independence. It begins now, not months from now — with a road to 60 votes in the Senate….

And in language that is similar to our past posts on this blog, they go on to say:

This process requires honest give-and-take and genuine bipartisanship. In that spirit, we have come together to put forward proposals that address legitimate concerns among Democrats and Republicans and the other constituencies with stakes in this legislation. We’re looking for a new beginning, informed by the work of our colleagues and legislation that is already before Congress.

And we certainly applaud their note on the key role nuclear power can have in this new effort:

….while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power, our single largest contributor of emissions-free power. Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets. We need to jettison cumbersome regulations that have stalled the construction of nuclear plants in favor of a streamlined permit system that maintains vigorous safeguards while allowing utilities to secure financing for more plants. We must also do more to encourage serious investment in research and development to find solutions to our nuclear waste problem.

And it closes with:

We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put America back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist that the rest of the world join us in producing a new international agreement on global warming. That way, we will pass on to future generations a strong economy, a clean environment and an energy-independent nation.

You can read the rest of the op-ed here.

From the New York Times on increasing energy usage worldwide:

The proliferation of personal computers, iPods, cellphones, game consoles and all the rest amounts to the fastest-growing source of power demand in the world. Americans now have about 25 consumer electronic products in every household, compared with just three in 1980.

Worldwide, consumer electronics now represent 15 percent of household power demand, and that is expected to triple over the next two decades, according to the International Energy Agency, making it more difficult to tackle the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming.

To satisfy the demand from gadgets will require building the equivalent of 560 coal-fired power plants, or 230 nuclear plants, according to the agency.

by Katherine Berezowkyj

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.

AREVA CEO Anne Lauvergeon speaks at the announcement ceremony in Piketon, Ohio on June 18, 2009.

Who doesn’t like a little attention? We’re pretty flattered by the interest in the joint announcement of an alliance to develop the nation’s first Clean Energy Park as the Piketon site in Southern Ohio yesterday. Even more, we’re encouraged by the focus on nuclear energy. It’s great to see that this announcement is bringing focus to some important issues.

Rebecca Smith and Mark Peters, Wall Street Journal:

Ohio obtains more than 85% of its electricity from coal incineration, one of the highest amounts of any state. Looming federal carbon legislation could raise the cost of coal-based electricity in coming years, pushing utility companies like Duke to explore lower-carbon options.

Matthew L. Wald, from the New York Times’s Green Inc. blog, recognizing the strong suits of the location:

Ohio officials, though, hope for a ‘clean energy park’ with a reactor and the enrichment plant. Because the old enrichment process used so much electricity, the site has strong grid connections, and cooling water is available. It is also in a region hungry for industrial development.

The Huffington Post, reprinting an AP story by Terry Kinney:

The site of a former uranium enrichment plant tucked away in the hills of southern Ohio has the necessary infrastructure for a nuclear power plant — abundant water, a power grid and bipartisan political backing.

Mark Niquette, writing for the Columbus Dispatch, on Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland’s speech:

Speaking today on a stage in front of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion plant, [Strickland] said the project would help revitalize southern Ohio’s economy while creating a clean energy source for a state and nation facing climate change.

The Dispatch also picked up on a special note from our CEO Anne Lauvergeon:

I say, ‘Let’s get to work … and go Buckeyes.’

AREVA EPR reactor under construction in Finland

by Jarret Adams

Today’s New York Times contains an article that presents a clearly unbalanced report of the progress of the AREVA EPR™ reactor under construction at Olkiluoto, Finland. The article includes several inaccuracies and mischaracterizations all in the pursuit of the writer’s foregone conclusion, albeit posed as a question, “Is the Nuclear ‘Renaissance’ Fizzling?” Such is the title of the blog post accompanying the article. The print version bears the title, “Not So Fast, Nukes,” and the online version, “In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble.” Given these titles, one would not expect a charitable account of the nuclear revival now under way.

Well, from our perspective, the nuclear renaissance is going just fine, thank you.

Despite a global recession, AREVA increased sales in 2008 by more than 10 percent and grew its order backlog by more than 20 percent. We continue to negotiate new deals for EPR™ reactors and other AREVA products and services with customers around the globe.

We recognize that as with any first-of-a-kind project, there is bound to be a learning curve. We are learning much from the EPR™ reactor under construction in Finland and will apply this experience to future projects around the world. At our second EPR™ project in France, we’ve already implemented many of the improvements we’ve learned from the Finland project.

Before construction begins in earnest on the first EPR™ reactors in the United States, AREVA will have completed several others internationally. The success of the Olkiluoto project will not be measured on timetables alone but also on the quality of the product delivered.

In fact, the growing interest in new reactors and other aspects of the nuclear energy infrastructure worldwide suggests the nuclear renaissance is picking up speed.

In North America, we are very committed to a revival of nuclear energy. We are making investments such as a heavy component manufacturing facility in Newport News, Va., and a uranium enrichment facility in Idaho. We also are hiring hundreds of engineers at locations in Lynchburg, Va., and Charlotte to develop the U.S. EPR™ technology. These U.S. EPR™ reactors will be made in America, and their construction and operation will create thousands of new jobs.

In fact, AREVA plans to hire some 12,000 new employees this year worldwide. And our competitors in the nuclear energy sector also are hiring. Today more than 30 new reactors are under consideration in the United States. This hardly paints a picture of a revival that has run “into trouble.” The nuclear energy industry is not pursuing the investments for philanthropic purposes, but because it sees legitimate business opportunities.

Finally, to a few of the mischaracterizations: the article states that AREVA “turned to” Finland for the first EPR™ reactor after having difficulty selling the reactor in France. In fact, the Finland opportunity simply presented itself first. It also states that the NRC will delay review of a license application until the design certification for the U.S. EPR™ reactor is complete. At present, review of license application is being pursued in parallel with the design certification.

In the end, one can expect more articles arguing whether a nuclear renaissance will succeed fueled by those who desperately want it not to succeed. The fact is that nuclear energy’s revival already is under way, and AREVA is at the center of it.