Clean Skies is a site for discussion and debate over energy and environmental policy in the U.S., including in-depth video news of important issues. As nuclear energy is a leading CO2-free energy source, the network has focused some recent pieces on key aspects of nuclear energy.

In a report from July 1^st, Clean Skies News talks about the success that France has had with nuclear energy, meeting approximately 80 percent of its energy needs.

http://www.cleanskies.com/videos/energy-report-7109-afternoon-edition

The following clip looks at another aspect of nuclear energy; the question of what to do with spent fuel in the U.S.  Here, the Clean Skies Team visits AREVA’s La Hague and MELOX recycling facilities for a report of the benefits of recycling technology.

http://www.cleanskies.com/videos/recycling-nuclear-waste

As a very important issue in nuclear energy right now- what to do with used fuel-we think this little video is appropriate for everyone who wants or needs to learn about recycling.  It actually explains AREVA’s process for recycling nuclear fuel for people who don’t have a PhD in nuclear engineering, while still mentioning how a closed fuel cycle has many potential energy saving benefits:

The House Committee on Science and Technology spent the morning listening to information on nuclear fuel recycling from AREVA’s Dr. Alan Hanson, Executive Vice-President of Technology and Used Fuel Management.

Some highlights include Hanson’s analysis of the main benefits and criticisms of recycling:

The main benefits associated with recycling are that it makes waste management easier, provides strategic flexibility and confidence for the long term, and saves natural resources and is able to burn plutonium, thereby reducing proliferation concerns.

• Makes waste management easier by reducing the volume of high level waste for disposal. “When such waste is vitrified, or specially-packed into a highly compact glass-like waste form for final storage, and added to the volume of compacted structural waste, the total volume necessary for final disposal is 75% less than the volume required if the used fuel is disposed directly in a repository.”

read more…

We’ve collected some of the highlights from last Friday’s first “Jacques Talk” conference call with AREVA North America President Jacques Besnainou. The conversation was wide-ranging and open, and we’re really glad Jacques had the opportunity to talk directly with the nuclear energy blogging community. If you’re a nuclear energy blogger and you’d like to be in on the next conference call, send us an email.

They’re all in MP3 format.

Jacques Besnainou on the NYT Article about Olkiluoto

Jacques Besnainou on Recycling

Jacques Besnainou on Canadian Loan Guarantees

Jacques Besnainou on Lessons Learned from Olkiluoto

Jacques Besnainou on International Enrichment Markets

If you’d like to listen to the whole call unedited, you can download it here.

by Katherine Berezowskyj

After a nuclear reactor has produced base-load, CO2-free energy, there is the matter of what to do with the left-over nuclear fuel. There are currently two options for dealing with the spent or “used” fuel. First is the direct disposal in a deep geological repository. The other option, not currently used in the U.S., is to recycle the spent nuclear fuel.

Yes, it is possible to employ the same approach used to reduce the waste of aluminum cans and paper for used nuclear fuel. And just as the recycling process keeps these materials from being thrown away in a landfill, the same is possible for recycling spent nuclear fuel. Recycling allows for approximately 96% of the spent fuel to be recovered and reused as new fuel in a reactor, thereby reducing the need for new uranium fuel by 25%.

The question then becomes, does recycling generate significantly larger quantities of waste than directly disposing of the spent fuel? The answer is yes and no because it depends on the kinds of waste, whether Low or High Level Waste. The spent fuel generated after time in the reactor is highly radioactive and is considered High Level Waste (HLW). After recycling, only a small portion, 4%, contained in the nuclear spent fuel, is not recyclable. This small portion is made into a very stable glass waste form and is classified as HLW. The metal parts of the nuclear spent fuel assembly are handled similar to HLW. Low Level Waste (LLW) on the other hand, is not highly radioactive and is produced from activities during the recycling process such as gloves, tools, and protection clothes that are used to facilitate the process.

When comparing the volume of waste changes during recycling, the volume of LLW generated is equivalent to about 2% of current LLW production in the U.S. But the LLW produced does not have the same levels of radioactivity as HLW and is able to be stored in a surface or near-surface facility. HLW is much more complicated and expensive to dispose of because it is requires burial in a repository deep underground.

As far as numbers go, recycling reduces the volume of HLW by a factor of 4-5 when compared to direct disposal of HLW. Looking at the spent fuel that comes from U.S. reactors each year, it would cut the quantity of HLW from approximately 2,000 metric tons to around only 780 cubic yards. Reducing the quantity of HLW by such a large degree can significantly delay the need to build an additional repository to hold the HLW produced in the U.S. This has the potential for a very considerable positive economic impact. Also, the recycling process significantly diminishes the waste toxicity by a factor of 10.

When it is possible to reduce the volume of HLW and drastically cut the need for complicated underground storage, why take care of it any other way?

Anne Lauvergeon, CEO of AREVA

Anne Lauvergeon is CEO of AREVA. This speech was given at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s 2009 Conference on Nonproliferation in Washington, D.C. on April 6, 2009. Previously: Part I – Part II – Part III

The nuclear industry itself can play an important role in making the acquisition of national enrichment and recycling facilities unnecessary and uneconomic. Thanks to a well-functioning fuel cycle market, with suppliers like AREVA that provide enrichment and used fuel recycling services at competitive prices, newcomers to nuclear energy simply do not need sensitive technologies! As well as many countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium, or Switzerland have enjoyed the benefits of nuclear energy for 40 years without mastering any sensitive technology! Fuel is supplied as part of long-term contracts, covered by export licenses. To make sure its products and services remain viable in the long term, the nuclear industry has already committed to major investments in new capacity.

I can see some of you reacting when I speak about recycling… Let me make a special focus on the recycling issue as I am convinced that this has to be the nerve centre of the partnership between nuclear industry and the non-proliferation community.

As we all know, there has been a long-standing debate about the merits of recycling and the management of the back-end of the fuel cycle.

• On one side is the once-through approach historically endorsed by the United States, which involves disposing of used fuel as a waste.
• On the other side is the recycling approach adopted by France, Japan, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and under consideration by China and India, which consists of recycling used fuel and recovering both plutonium and uranium to produce recycled fuel.

Concerns about proliferation risks of recycling were at the heart of the US policy, which was originally established on an interim basis by President Gerald Ford and extended by President Carter. The Bush Administration showed a new willingness to reconsider America’s once-through used fuel management strategy and to examine the merits of developing advanced technologies. We do not yet know what policy the Administration of President Barack Obama will adopt on recycling, but Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has expressed interest in continued research and development on recycling technologies.

Those decisions belong to the US Government and it is certainly not my role to interfere! Let me just give you my experience as a CEO of the world leader in this field. For this very reason, I might appear biased on the question of recycling… I am indeed guilty of such bias, but not for ideological or commercial reasons!

The closed fuel cycle approach is an industrial solution available today, and the inescapable path of the future. The experience shows that, under the right framework, treatment and recycling are a very good option, at a competitive cost. AREVA has treated more than 20 000 tons of spent fuel from 7 countries, on a commercial basis. Concretely, it means that the spent fuel used by our customers is taken back to La Hague, treated there in a way that enables to recycle 96% of it. The recycled materials are then taken to our facility in Melox, where MOX fuel is manufactured. This technique means that our customers have no access to any separated fissile materials, at any moment.

I am convinced that recycling is an economically, environmentally and socially responsible approach to the management of used nuclear fuel. I am always ready to share my views with skeptics and opponents, but I would first give them an advice: “please, come and see what recycling means to AREVA in our facilities! Come and visit AREVA’s recycling facility at La Hague and MOX fabricating in Melox!”

By sharing with you my experience, I would like to convince you that recycling used fuel and fabricating MOX fuel under effective safeguards and physical protection measures have not contributed and will not contribute to the weakening of the nonproliferation regime.

On the contrary, I believe that AREVA is contributing to reducing proliferation risks and being environmentally responsible. AREVA removes used fuel, recycles reusable material, and reduces the volume and radiotoxicity of waste. In the United States alone, if the US chooses to recycle, there is already enough used fuel in temporary storage at utility sites to generate enough electricity from nuclear origin to power the US for 7 years.

In addition AREVA is contributing to nuclear arms control and disarmament by
helping to eliminate weapons plutonium declared as excess by the United States in connection with its international commitments. We are building a MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility in Savannah River, South Carolina, based on our MELOX facility used to produce recycled fuel in France. This will enable the United States to convert 34 metric tons of surplus weapons-grade plutonium into MOX fuel for the elimination / destruction / disposition of nuclear weapons and the production of electricity in commercial nuclear plants! We are also part of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative of the DoE by recycling in La Hague separated plutonium, then used in MOX fuel.

As we all know here, MOX fuel is the only solution available in the short-term to reduce the surplus of weapons-grade plutonium. I think important to state it here, when President Obama has urged weapon-states to go further in nuclear disarmament. Let me say that AREVA is ready to deepen its partnering with the US Government.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

After the G20 Summit last week in London, some comments said that we may enter a new world as far as economy is concerned. For nuclear energy, it is already done! We have entered indeed 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; a world where efficiency and pragmatism have replaced prestige.

The ongoing nuclear renaissance offers us indeed 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!

On the contrary, I strongly believe that thanks to the partnership between all the stakeholders in non-proliferation – you, from the community of non-proliferation, me, as a representative of the nuclear industry, – we are able to seize this nuclear renaissance as the unique opportunity it is, the opportunity to enhancing the culture of nonproliferation among all the stakeholders of this renaissance.

Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for your attention. I’ll be happy to address and
deepen any questions you may want to tackle.

Anne Lauvergeon, CEO of AREVA

Anne Lauvergeon is CEO of AREVA. This speech was given at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s 2009 Conference on Nonproliferation in Washington, D.C. on April 6, 2009. Previously: Part I – Part II

In considering the global nuclear renaissance, we need to pay special heed to the interests of developing countries in acquiring civil nuclear programs. I know that some are concerned about such a development. Personally, I consider the interest shown by these countries in nuclear energy as good news, for at least three reasons.

First, we need to do everything we can to put an end to today’s global energy imbalance. Two billion people are currently living without access to electricity, left by the wayside. And no electricity means life expectancy of thirty-five or forty years. We cannot allow this situation to continue.

Second, the effects of climate change will not be limited to the industrialized countries. Developing countries will be particularly hard hit by global warming. Many developing countries are now turning to nuclear power as a source of energy that is carbon-free. Far from trying to dissuade them, we should be applauding and supporting their efforts.

Third, objections to deploying nuclear energy in the developing world on nonproliferation grounds are politically and legally unacceptable – and, to me, ethically unacceptable. Nuclear energy is not just a privilege for rich countries. Any effort to deny the benefits of nuclear technology to developing peaceful nuclear technology will only undermine the NPT. Should I remind you about the text of the treaty itself, that “parties in a position to do so are obligated to assist the nuclear programs of other parties, with special attention to the needs of developing countries.” This provision was part of the basic bargain of the NPT – this “sound basic bargain” mentioned by President Obama. Thus, challenging the aspirations for or rights of developing countries to nuclear energy on the grounds that they would increase proliferation risks, is tantamount to challenging the fundamental balance of NPT, and jeopardizing the very foundation of the nonproliferation system.

By making the case for developing countries, I am not saying that any of them can accede to nuclear energy. Nuclear will not be appropriate for several countries in the world, whether for political reasons, or because of lack of required industrial infrastructure and skills in the country. To develop a nuclear program means for a country to be stable and rational. Some countries in the world cannot develop a nuclear program. This is clear.

But for those who can, AREVA’s rules for selling nuclear reactors and fuel are fair, non-discriminatory and universal. Whether our customers are American, Finnish, French, Chinese or South African, British or Indian, the same rules should apply: all countries must comply with international nonproliferation norms and their obligations. In this respect I am very pleased that diplomatic efforts over last years have succeeded in reaching a global and pragmatic solution allowing a re-opening of nuclear trade relations with India with the necessary peaceful use guarantees.

You will have understood why in my view, nuclear renaissance does not equate to proliferation risk. I would go further: the nuclear revival provides a unique opportunity to promote an enhanced culture of non proliferation. Let’s seize it! How? What can and what should we do?

In the past several years, we have witnessed a number of proposals to minimize the risks associated with the spread of these sensitive nuclear technologies. International fuel bank under the auspices of the IAEA, mentioned yesterday by President Obama, Six-nation “Concept of fuel assurances”: those initiatives prove that all the stakeholders involved in non-proliferation have taken the measure of the actions to take.

The nuclear industry supports the principle of a global system for ensuring security of supply to States so that they do not perceive a need to develop sensitive technologies and facilities. But, it is important to bear in mind that, whatever technical arrangements are established, the most important factor in assuring nuclear fuel to consumers is the commitment of supplier governments and industries to provide nuclear fuel on a reliable and predictable basis under strict nonproliferation controls.

Anne Lauvergeon, CEO of AREVA

Anne Lauvergeon is CEO of AREVA. This speech was given at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s 2009 Conference on Nonproliferation in Washington, D.C. on April 6, 2009. Previously: Part I

Of course, the responsibility for ensuring an effective regime to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons rests first and foremost with governments. States ensure that the Nonproliferation Treaty and the related bilateral and multilateral arrangements and regimes are respected and enforced by the involved stakeholders. But nuclear industry also have to play a major role in implementing those rules.

And it does play this role. Let me give you the example of what it concretely means for a company like AREVA. AREVA’s “Value Charter” establishes nonproliferation at the top of its operating principles:

• AREVA manages all its nuclear facilities and nuclear materials in full accord with all international nonproliferation treaties, norms and national regulations.
• AREVA does not, and will never, cooperate with any customer from a country that does not adhere to international nonproliferation norms or is in noncompliance with its nonproliferation obligations.
• Even if a country satisfies the above criteria, we reserve the right to assess any particular commercial transaction in terms of its effect on nonproliferation rules and regional and international stability.
• AREVA implements its own rigorous export control process for all end-user countries, which includes special training for AREVA employees who implement this program.
• As for sensitive technologies, such as enrichment and reprocessing (or recycling), let me be clear about them. We exercise special care in considering the transfer to other countries. As far as recycling technology transfer is concerned, we have transferred it to Japan, provided Japan committed not to retransfer this technology to any other country. We are currently considering transferring the recycling technology without any separation of plutonium to China, and we will transfer it to the United States if they choose to. To sum it up, Japan, maybe China and the United States, and that’s all! Full stop!

To share and always improve our practice, we also participate in numerous international initiatives, committees and institutions that seek to strengthen the nonproliferation regime. And at first with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It is the very reason why I joined the IAEA Committee 2020 set up in 2008 by Mohamed El Baradei. I believe indeed that industry has a role here to support and strengthen the nonproliferation regime, and its core actor such as IAEA. I am also currently working with the ‘International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament’ chaired by Garreth Evans and Yuriko Kawaguchi. In my view, participating in such committees is neither about prestige, nor about giving a label of good behaviour to nuclear industry. No, it is about partnering and sharing, sharing our ground experience in safeguards, in physical protection and other technical aspects of the nonproliferation field.

It is also about sharing how we see the nuclear market evolving. Let me insist on that point: potential AREVA customers are not interested in enrichment or recycling facilities. They are interested in the generation of clean and affordable power. Why? Because the era of prestige is over: most countries have now entered an era of realism and efficiency. They have an equation to solve: how to generate X thousands MWh for 2020 or 2025 in a competitive, sustainable, and responsible way. And nuclear electricity generation is one of the solutions. You may wonder: and what if those countries ask for sensitive technology transfers? Well, the answer is simple: we won’t sell it!

Why do some countries seek nuclear weapons? National security, national power, prestige: their motivations are political. That is why apparent weapons programs have existed in some countries that have never produced a single KWh with nuclear generation – North Korea, Iraq, Iran come to mind.

The countries that come and see AREVA are not at all in this mindset. In fact, almost all countries we meet show zero interest in acquiring sensitive nuclear technology such as highly sophisticated uranium enrichment and/or used fuel treatment capability. As light water reactors such as AREVA’s EPR reactor by themselves do not present a proliferation risk, that’s why I am confident to say that the international growth of nuclear electricity generation does not equate to proliferation risk.

Anne Lauvergeon, CEO of AREVA

Anne Lauvergeon is CEO of AREVA. This speech was given at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s 2009 Conference on Nonproliferation in Washington, D.C. on April 6, 2009. This is Part I of her speech; we’ll be posting more in the upcoming days.

Dear Jessica Matthews, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I heard President Obama’s remarkable speech in Prague yesterday. It reminded me of this sentence of the German philosopher Hegel: “Human beings make history but they are not aware of which history they are making.” Well, yesterday, I had the feeling that President Obama and us are aware of the history we are willing to make, the history of a safer, more prosperous, and more equitable world.

It is of course first and foremost the responsibility of States to ensure a peaceful and prosperous world. But it is also the responsibility of non-governmental actors to dedicate all their efforts to help building this world: experts, researchers, think tanks, and corporate business.

That’s why I want to convey my deepest thanks to the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, and to its President, Jessica Mathews, for giving me the opportunity to express today the view of an industrial actor on non-proliferation.

Actually, I feel both impressed and honoured to be invited to give a speech at this prestigious Conference.

Firstly, because of the fame of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Secondly, because I feel very much the honour of talking as a representative of the industry to all of you, who represent the world nonproliferation community. Let’s be frank: we belong to two worlds that have not sufficiently spoken together. Thanks to the action of such organizations as Carnegie, but also thanks of the transparency and openness of a nuclear company like AREVA, bridges have been created, and a fruitful dialogue has been set up.

It was high time we found ways to talk to each other. With the nuclear renaissance, we indeed have a unique opportunity to promote an enhanced culture of non-proliferation. Because this is my conviction: whatever you call it – renaissance, rebirth, renewed interest, come-back… the fact is that we witness a worldwide enthusiasm for nuclear energy, coming from Governments, utilities or electro-intensive industries, with which we have to deal with in a responsible way. Our shared interests – the industry’s ones, but also the governments’ and the community of experts’ ones – are at stake.

We have to deal with it because there is neither craze nor any fashionable trend in this renewed interest in nuclear energy, but rational and well-grounded reasons. Energy lies indeed at the heart of the challenges the world must address, and sustainability, competitiveness, and security are the three angles of the energy triangle.

Few sources of energy can meet these three requirements.

Fossil fuels, with their substantial greenhouse gas emissions, cannot meet the sustainability requirement.

Even if they have to be developed, most of the renewable sources of energy provide only intermittent energy and cannot by themselves ensure full security of supply. Moreover, they don’t meet the competitiveness requirement as well, needing heavy subsidies in the USA as well as in Europe. It is not shocking to subsidize a source of energy at the early stage of its development but we have to be aware of it.

Nuclear energy does meet all three requirements of sustainability, competitiveness and security. Nuclear energy is indeed:

Carbon-free and sustainable, because it emits the lowest amount of carbon per KWhe among all sources of energy,

Competitive, even without a carbon pricing system. That is why it is the choice of countries with highly regulated economic systems (China, India), partially deregulated ones such as the United States of America, or totally deregulated economies like in the United Kingdom,

Secure, because uranium is widely available around the world – current major mines are in politically stable countries, such as Canada and Australia,

And conventional resources account for 200 times the annual demand. In addition, the global nuclear fuel market is functioning effectively, and consumer states are able to obtain satisfactory assurances of supply through long-term contracts. For example, in AREVA, we have signed a contract with a customer for 60 years!

The ability of nuclear power to meet these requirements explains the growing global interest in nuclear energy. However, the prospects for an expansion in nuclear energy also come with concerns in some quarters that the spread of this technology could contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons either to additional states or to nonstate actors such as terrorist groups.

I came here today because my conviction, and my experience, is that the nuclear renaissance does not put the non-proliferation regime at risk. The international growth of nuclear electricity generation does not equate – and should not be equated – to increasing proliferation risk.

Should I recall that the vast majority of states, I would even say nearly all the States with the exception of few, have made commitments to forego the manufacture or acquisition of nuclear weapons and have abided by those obligations? I believe it fair to state that the nonproliferation regime has been very successful in limiting the spread of nuclear weapons.

Of course, we all have in mind the proliferation crisis this regime had and still have to go through: Iran, North Korea, the A.Q. Khan network. If I mention those crises, it is because I want to be very clear on one point. I am not stating that everything works perfectly and that the non-proliferation regime as it exists is a panacea. No one doubts indeed that responsible members of the international community must be ever vigilant, and must accelerate their efforts to tighten the nonproliferation regime and to strengthen international safeguards, nuclear export controls, physical protection and other elements of the regime. And this is why the non-proliferation policy exposed yesterday by President Obama comes as a relief and a hope for all of us who are aware of the weak points of the non-proliferation regime.

However, the proliferation challenges mentioned above do not cast doubt on the effectiveness of the nonproliferation system as a whole! Nor do they justify the conclusion that the growth of civil nuclear power programs means the spread of nuclear weapons!

We’d like to direct your attention to an op-ed by Jeff Jacoby in this Sunday’s Boston Globe: “The Coming Nuclear Renaissance.”  Here are some of the highlights:

There is no small irony in this turnabout. Nuclear power used to be the environmentalist’s ultimate pariah, thanks mostly to overblown claims about the dangers of reactor meltdowns and nuclear waste. But now the green movement has a new pariah – fossil fuels and their carbon dioxide emissions. To many environmentalists alarmed about global warming, nuclear power has an irresistible appeal: It releases no greenhouse gases. Indeed – another irony – nuclear power plants don’t even release as much radiation as coal-fired plants, since coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.

As a result, some of the world’s most ardent Greens have come around to embracing nuclear power.

“Only nuclear power can now halt global warming,” wrote James Lovelock, the father of the celebrated Gaia theory, which regards the Earth and life on the planet as one complex, interacting “organism,” in 2004. In Wired magazine the following year, a much-discussed article – “Nuclear Now!” – made the case that only “clean, green atomic energy can stop global warming.”

The problems with nuclear energy have not vanished. To build a nuclear plant is an expensive undertaking, the disposal of spent fuel rods remains politically contentious, and at least some environmental activists will continue to do what they can to exacerbate fear of nuclear power’s dangers.

But 30 years after Three Mile Island, the nuclear future looks brighter than it has in a long time. Right now, 104 commercial reactors generate 20 percent of America’s electricity. As the war against the atom continues to wind down, expect to see those numbers go up.

The whole article is excellent; check it out.  We, of course, would like to point out that the question of spent fuel rod disposal will become much more manageable when we start recycling spent fuel here in the U.S. rather than just using it once and calling it waste.  AREVA is leading the way in the nuclear industry toward a more efficient fuel cycle.