By Anne Lauvergeon, CEO of AREVA and Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy

This originally appeared in today’s issue of The Energy Daily.

A “meaningful agreement.”

President Obama refused to take no for an answer as he negotiated with world leaders during the recent UN climate conference in Copenhagen to set a new course for battling climate change.
read more…

Jacques Besnainou AREVA Inc. CEO

In the January edition of Electroindustry—a publication from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association—AREVA Inc. CEO Jacques Besnainou discusses how changes in renewable energy and grid standards are an essential part of transforming the U.S. energy sector.

“But, while everyone agrees the outcome from Copenhagen may take a few years to be ratified and implemented, it is encouraging that many countries, including the U.S., Canada, EU, and China, are moving forward with their own actions to lower their carbon footprints and transition to low-carbon economies.”

Besnainou points out that in addition to federal actions, some states have adopted Renewable Portfolio Standards (PRS), “which together constitute another key driver of renewable energy.”

“Many states in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions have expressed interest in offshore wind. We have seen similar interest in coastal provinces of Eastern Canada. AREVA, as part of a strong commitment to supplying the world with clean, CO2-free energy, is making significant investments in offshore wind in the U.S. and Canada. We believe that standards will make offshore wind a sustainable market and we are encouraged by the projections from the American and Canadian Wind Associations.”

Equally important in the development of renewable energy is the need for “interconnection standards that eliminate barriers to connecting offshore and onshore wind plants to transmission systems. The existing grid interconnection standards must continue to evolve and be flexible as the technology advances.”

Read the rest of the piece “Standards Increase Renewable Energy, Facilitate Grid Interconnection,” on page 3 here.

For more information about what AREVA is doing in renewable energy and offshore wind can also be found here.

We think these are a very good series of questions… and are proud to among the companies and organizations asking them.

Anne Lauvergeon, CEO of AREVA, answers some very important questions about AREVA, the company’s strategy, the EPR™ reactor, and the potential of the nuclear energy industry.

AREVA was not selected for the UAE reactor bid. What lessons do you draw from this decision?

It was bad news. When we decide to compete, we compete to win.

Our competitors and AREVA offered two very different products in terms of power rating, nuclear safety and industrial safety. To make a simple comparison, the customer had the choice between a 100 m² house with an armored door and a 120m² house with an armored door, an alarm and video surveillance. Obviously, not for the same price. The safety authorities in Western Europe and the United States, which set the standards, require that new reactor construction be able to withstand the crash of a wide-body aircraft and all types of serious accidents, including a core meltdown. This is a government requirement that does not exist in all countries. Will the safety authorities come to an agreement, or are we headed towards a dual standard for nuclear power? The answer to that question is vital to our business strategy.

But let’s be clear. AREVA is aiming for one third of the new build market. We’re not going to go after everything. And not everything is going to come to us.

Was the Korean bid really a lot lower than the French one?

Yes, but the bid was also “lower” in terms of technology and safety. The euro/dollar exchange rate was also a factor. The Korean reactors have not yet been certified by the UAE safety authority. In addition, the group is still in the running for future projects, given its fuel recycling expertise.

What do you have to say to those who think that the EPR™ reactor is too expensive and too complicated?

With our EPR™, ATMEA1™ and KERENA™ reactors, we offer customers a range of solutions at different power ratings. These are some of the most advanced reactors in the world in terms of safety and security. I believe in nuclear power, but I also have a responsibility towards my children’s generation and those that follow. That’s why we’re selling the safety of zero impact in the event of a core meltdown or the crash of an aircraft. Because we don’t want another Chernobyl, and the events of September 11 have left a mark. This safety comes with a cost; it requires more steel and more concrete. The real question is how high our standards for new reactors are. The safety authorities have set the bar high. That was the condition for public acceptance in Europe and the United States.

As to how competitive the EPR™ reactor is, let’s look at the facts: we signed the largest contract ever with China in 2007 and two EPR™ reactors are under construction there. In February 2009, we signed a Memorandum of Understanding for two others in India and, just before Christmas, we received a letter of intent for a first EPR™ reactor in California. There are a total of four EPR™ reactors under construction in the world and 19 others are planned. If it was not competitive or too complicated, how would we have been able to export it?

Do you still believe that nuclear power has a future?

I’m pragmatic: nuclear power isn’t THE solution, but how are we going to produce twice as much electricity and cut CO2 emissions in half by 2050 if we don’t use nuclear energy, the main source of clean, abundant and safe energy? For the same reason, I don’t see how we can do without renewable energies whenever appropriate. For a long time now, I’ve been promoting an objective debate on the advantages and disadvantages of each solution. If there was a silver bullet, we would know it by now!

I’m glad to see that we’re slowly leaving the ideological wars behind us, and I will continue to follow this line of action because I believe in it as a citizen, not just because it is my job. In this respect, while the Copenhagen summit didn’t culminate in a concrete agreement, it put things on the table. It also made it clear that the climate change battle concerns first and foremost the OECD and the Big Five!

Doesn’t losing this contract cast doubt on AREVA’s strategy?

Not at all. First of all, every call for bids is unique. We may not have been selected in the United Arab Emirates, but we made the short list. There are lessons to be learned from this call for bids, but our business strategy and our target of capturing one third of new build projects in global market by 2030 remain unchanged. Nor should we forget that 80% of our revenue comes from our installed base business which is our core business.

The loss of this contract will leave a void in our 2010 operations. What major projects or initiatives are there to fill it?

Negotiations are in progress in the United Kingdom and India, among others. Moreover, the South African proposal is still in progress, and there are new opportunities in Italy. In the United States, five utilities have expressed an interest in our EPR™ reactor. Fresno Nuclear Energy Group recently joined that list. And let’s not forget that 80% of our income is from the installed base business, where the 2010 outlook is strong. Our EPR™ reactor technology has been chosen for 19 new nuclear power plants – eight in the United States, four in the United Kingdom, four in Italy, two in India and one in France – and another four are under construction in Finland, France and China. Customers are also expressing interest in our KERENA™ and ATMEA1™ reactors.

Great post from Robert at ProNuclear Democrats Blog… go read the whole thing, but here’s a snippet:

I heard the USS Carl Vinson is being sent to Port-au-Prince to supply humanitarian aid and fresh water. The desalination capabilities of the aircraft carrier was briefly mentioned but no other details given beyond that which is completely understandable. News agencies are not interested in boring their audience with technical diversions and that’s why this is a perfectly good opportunity for this blog to remind everyone the USS Carl Vinson is a nuclear powered ship and uses that power source to desalinate about 400,000 gallons of sea water a day.

USS Carl Vinson

Haiti needs more water than this on a daily basis in this emergency situation but this vital supply of fresh water would otherwise be extremely logistically difficult without a transportable desalination plant like the Carl Vinson. Additionally, the energy to process this water would be extremely voluminous if done with oil and require constant resupply – yet another logistical challenge. However, with a nuclear power source, the fuel supply is extremely compact and lasts for years, it makes the logistical problem that would exist with a fossil fuel source disappear completely. There is no other power solution that can do a better job of bringing fresh water in this situation.

Thomas Friedman wrote in a Jan. 9 op-ed on why the United States should invest and develop “Energy Technology” (ET) now. If not, America’s technology, businesses, and infrastructure could be left behind as China’s makes a “green leap forward.” Here’s what he wrote:

“We are either going to put in place a price on carbon and the right regulatory incentives to ensure that America is China’s main competitor/partner in the E.T. revolution, or we are going to gradually cede this industry to Beijing and the good jobs and energy security that would go with it…

China is also engaged in the world’s most rapid expansion of nuclear power. It is expected to build some 50 new nuclear reactors by 2020; the rest of the world combined might build 15.

EPR(tm) reactor construction in China

By the end of this decade, China will be dominating global production of the whole range of power equipment,” said Andrew Brandler, the C.E.O. of the CLP Group, Hong Kong’s largest power utility.

In the process, China is going to make clean power technologies cheaper for itself and everyone else. But even Chinese experts will tell you that it will all happen faster and more effectively if China and America work together — with the U.S. specializing in energy research and innovation, at which China is still weak, as well as in venture investing and servicing of new clean technologies, and with China specializing in mass production.”

Read the rest of the opinion piece from the New York Times here.

By Katherine Berezowskyj

Yesterday, Carol Browner, the White House energy and climate advisor, held an online chat where she discussed energy independence, a new generation of clean energy jobs, and the need for comprehensive energy legislation.

The White House posted the live footage of the chat on its blog. Browner outlines the White House’s vision for energy in the United States and explains the answers to critical questions (on items including renewable energy incentives, green jobs, energy efficiency and the market mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gases).

A Reuters’ article from yesterday picked up on a clear message from Browner during the chat:

“We have not built a nuclear plant in this country in a long time but we want to work with the industry to make that happen in the not too distant future.”

“The president believes that nuclear needs to be a part of our energy future,” Browner said. “If you believe as we do that climate change is a serious problem … then you need to be open to what are all of the ways in which we can produce energy in a clean manner.”

Bill Weihl

Q. What does the pathway to cheap renewable energy at scale look like? Do you think there’s enough political and societal will to make it happen?

A. As a society, we have chosen to invest too little in alternative energy over the years, and that has made some of the choices much harder than they should be… We should be investing in new wind technologies that promise substantially lower cost. We should be investing in enhanced geothermal, we should be investing in cheaper, safer, cleaner nuclear…. We need to invest across the spectrum.”

– Google’s Energy “Czar” Bill Weihl
from the New York Times from January 7, 2010.

Governor Jan Brewer

And more news about the need for both nuclear energy and renewables, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer “wants more nuclear power for in state.” According to the Associated Press, Brewer said Tuesday that “the state should include more nuclear power plants in its energy portfolio while cutting taxes and government regulation to provide a welcome mat for solar and wind projects encountering “green tape” elsewhere.

Said Brewer, “Memo to California solar industries: Arizona’s door is open, we’ll leave the light on for you.”

Brewer outlined a portfolio of positions and initiatives on energy topics during an address to a regional business summit held at a Phoenix resort.

Arizona already is home to the three-reactor Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station west of Phoenix, and Brewer said she wants to develop more nuclear power.

No new nuclear power plant has been built in the U.S. for decades but economic and environmental factors warrant a new emphasis on that electricity source, Brewer said.

“I believe it’s the wave of the future,” she said.”

Read the rest of the piece by Paul Davenport of the Associated Press here.

An op-ed by AREVA North America CEO Jacques Besnainou that appeared in yesterday’s Tri-City Herald (Wash.).

Jacques Besnainou, AREVA North America CEO

“Despite broad support for effective climate legislation, its passage is not certain. Yes, many stakeholders want action. But too many of them are promoting parochial interests at the expense of the greater good.

Some special interest groups focus entirely on energy efficiency. Others are wedded to renewable sources and say no others need apply. Still others are battling for a greater role for biofuels, small hydro, clean coal, nuclear energy or any of a host of others. Which one should the government choose?

My response is that it is not an either/or question. We need a broad range of clean energy alternatives and we need to get moving. While some projects already are under way, a strong climate bill would hasten the development of more clean energy projects and create thousands of additional green jobs.

Rather than advocating and defending so many individual energy “silos,” none of which will solve the problem alone, we should unite behind a holistic approach. We should rally around the broad banner of clean energy, defined as all sources that produce little or no carbon dioxide and have a minimal impact on the environment.
Two areas are particularly promising and deserve priority attention in developing a holistic solution.

The first is renewable energy, especially offshore wind, biomass and solar. Today, renewables account for 3 percent of our energy supply, but there is great potential for growth.

Wind off our coasts is perpetual, continuous and clean. No one can disrupt its supply. Similarly, the sun offers the potential for an inexhaustible source of energy.
The second is nuclear energy, which supplies 20 percent of the nation’s total electricity, but is by far the largest source of CO2-free electricity.

America’s nuclear power sector accounts for nearly 75 percent of our clean air energy, thus any expansion of our nuclear sector would avoid massive volumes of emissions.

But a sizeable number of Americans still harbor fears of nuclear power. Our challenge is to do a better job of informing the publicabout the nuclear industry’s exemplary safety record over the last 50 years.

There are those who suggest that, as we develop a cleaner, more efficient power sector, we must choose between nuclear energy and renewables. This is a false choice, and forcing people to make one would be a huge mistake.

The solution is not nuclear energy or renewables. It is not a focus on energy efficiency or new generation. Finding our way to a low-carbon future means we need more energy efficiency, renewables, nuclear energy and other clean sources if we are to succeed.”

Read the full piece from the Tri-City Herald (Wash.) here.

A version of the op-ed also appeared in Sunday’s Lynchburg (Va.) News & Advance.