Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Former US energy chief joins US unit of Areva [new nuke plants for US]
Reuters | 28 Feb 2006 | Bernie Woodall

Posted on 02/28/2006 9:09:06 PM PST by demlosers

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Former U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham on Tuesday said he became chairman of the U.S. unit of Areva, the world's largest maker of nuclear reactors, because he wants to foster a new fleet of nuclear power plants in the United States.

"The current fleet of nuclear plants provides 20 percent of our power generation," said Abraham in a telephone interview. "If we don't build any new plants, at the rate of growth in our demand, that figure will be 14 percent by 2020."

Abraham has long been an advocate of nuclear power, which he said makes him a good fit as Paris-based Areva, seeks to expand its position in the United States.

Areva, owned by the French government, competes for design and construction of power plants mainly with Westinghouse and General Electric Co.'s unit GE Energy.

Westinghouse is being acquired by Toshiba Corp. for $5.4 billion.

Abraham, 53, was a Republican U.S. senator from Michigan, before serving as energy secretary in the first Bush administration from 2001-2005.

He says he will be a "non-executive" chairman and will not immerse himself in the day-to-day operation of Areva Inc., which is the U.S. unit of Areva.

"Secretary Abraham has been one of the true leaders for the advancement of nuclear power in America, and indeed, around the world," said Anne Lauvergeon, chairman of Areva. "He is well-respected and offers our company unique insights and authority."

Abraham declined to say how many nuclear plants he expects to be built in the United States. Industry analysts have said that 10 to 15 nuclear units will be built by 2020. And the head of Areva's international division, Jean-Jacques Gautrot, said he thinks at least 800 nuclear reactors will be built in the next 25 to 35 years.

Any new plants will be units at the site of existing ones in the United States, Abraham said.

"It's likely to be that way for a variety of reasons," Abraham said. "The site has usually gone through the challenge posed by having that facility. The public in those communities is probably more receptive to additional units."

Abraham, 53, heads The Abraham Group, a Washington-based consulting firm focusing on energy issues.

Areva Inc. has 40 locations in 20 U.S. states and had 2005 revenues of $1.8 billion.

Areva says it is the only company in the world involved in the full cycle of nuclear power activity, from mining uranium to its enrichment, fuel production, reactor design, construction and maintenance, fuel processing and recycling.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: energy; nuclear
Areva, owned by the French government, competes for design and construction of power plants mainly with Westinghouse and General Electric Co.'s unit GE Energy.

Do we have a security problem here.

1 posted on 02/28/2006 9:09:10 PM PST by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: demlosers

Oops, forgot link:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-03-01T023840Z_01_N28307120_RTRUKOC_0_US-UTILITIES-AREVA-ABRAHAM.xml&archived=False


2 posted on 02/28/2006 9:10:09 PM PST by demlosers (Kerry: "Impeach Bush, filibuster Alito, withdraw from Iraq, send U235 to Iran, elect me President!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
The Left is against nuclear power solely because it would be so effective. They can't have the U.S capitalist economy functioning well.

If Cuba were to develop nuclear power plants the Left would celebrate Castro's achievement.

3 posted on 02/28/2006 9:15:43 PM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
I read this as only building at existing sites. Are they talking about expanding or replacing reactors? By using existing sites, can they get around the enviros objections, anyone know?
4 posted on 02/28/2006 9:17:38 PM PST by jazusamo (:Gregory was riled while Hume smiled:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch

Whatever happened with that plant Cuba was working on?


5 posted on 02/28/2006 9:18:25 PM PST by headstamp (Nothing lasts forever, Unless it does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: demlosers

Well given that you'll fuel it with Canadian uranium (more than likely) I wouldn't panic too much.:) People might have issues with the French, but they make one hell of a reactor.


6 posted on 02/28/2006 9:22:38 PM PST by Threepwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headstamp
I hadn't known there had ever been one.

Cuba’s unfinished power source

Never finished. But if it had, nary a peep would have been heard from the enviro's.

7 posted on 02/28/2006 9:55:14 PM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Threepwood
Your talking about this company...

What has happened in America? Are our students for tomorrow's future born with such an open mind that their brains ran out? Why can't we get some Nuke plants up and going? Oooh forgot we have the appeasement trail to conquer first...


Walks off to check the difference between F and S, knowing that $hit will hit the fan when America gets tired of being appeasers sucking hind teat.
8 posted on 02/28/2006 9:56:39 PM PST by Issaquahking (Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Issaquahking

Well, the French have an advantage in that they told NIMBY'ing citizens to get bent. 3/4 of the energy in France is Nuclear-produced, and running that many cookers means they have a commerical edge. If the United States had taken a similar approach in the 1970's, you would have had a similar edge, commerically.

Technically, an American reactor is a remarkable piece of
machinery, and the arrival of smaller modular designs is only improving this. It's all a matter of money and priorities.

As a sidenote, Canada makes a hell of a reactor too.:)


9 posted on 02/28/2006 11:16:02 PM PST by Threepwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Issaquahking

Speaking of which, did you see the little movie on the Areva website?

http://www.us.areva.com/ad-campaign-film.php

Nuclear juice has never been so darn CUTE!


10 posted on 02/28/2006 11:18:59 PM PST by Threepwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Issaquahking

That Areva ad on the page you linked is pretty funny. It is a much shorter version of one they ran a year ago that showed Uranium being dug up in Canada, then processed in large ships as it went over to China, where they put it into reactors cores to supply the city. They've made the ad shorter and cut out the ship part, but you can tell the the futuristic city they show has an Asian look to it, even though they try to pass it off as Kansas City in the zoom out.

One thing I've always admired about the French is that they have never put up with any protesters or other bullcrap getting in the way of their nuclear ambitions, either weapons or electrical power. Since the French and the Japanese have the best record of building and running nuke plants, it should not be surprising that all of the American talent in this area has withered on the vine and is all sold out to these two countries.

Now if we want nuke plants, we have to put up with Sierra Club lawsuits and then outsource the job to get it done. Talk about adding insult to injury...


11 posted on 02/28/2006 11:39:28 PM PST by dsmtoday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: demlosers

Next item on the agenda -- reprocessing of spent fuel. Bet you guys didn't know that only about 5% of the fuel is actually used up during a "cycle" (which is approximately 6 years). That is, only about 5% of the enriched uranium is "burned" before the fuel assembly starts to become too inefficient for power generation.

Reprocessing that fuel would allow the US to pull out the 95% unused fuel and repackage it in new fuel assemblies. But Jimmy Carter forbid that, so we are left with lots and lots of nuclear waste with usuable fuel still in it.


12 posted on 03/01/2006 4:34:43 AM PST by Londo Molari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Threepwood
Click here, you'll like it!
13 posted on 03/01/2006 6:34:03 AM PST by Issaquahking (Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson