Oxford Catalysts Research Finds Preparation Method Rather Than Metals Used has Greater Influence on HDS Catalyst Performance
Chery Reports 68.8% Increase in Exports in Q1

AREVA and MHI Expand Collaboration to Fuel; French Prime Minister Says Japan and France Must Lead Global Nuclear Use

France-based AREVA, the world leading group in the nuclear energy field, and Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI), a major player in global nuclear industry, are expanding their cooperation to the nuclear fuel business.

The two companies have signed a memorandum of understanding to contemplate the establishment of a joint business organization for supply of PWR, BWR, MOX and Gas Reactor fuels. The implementation of this formation is expected by the end of this year.

The scope of this cooperation agreement will focus on the Japanese market. According to the MOU, both parties will discuss MHI’s potential investment in AREVA’s US nuclear fuel fabrication facility.

They noted also that joint development work of their new reactor, ATMEA 1, has made good progress targeting the completion of its basic design by the end of 2009, that design review by third parties is planned and that customer visits have already been started by ATMEA.

AREVA and MHI have also decided to work jointly on the South African tender for which AREVA proposed two EPRs, extending the manufacturing cooperation initiated for the Finnish Olkiluoto 3 EPR.

Separately, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said Japan and France must spearhead the use of nuclear energy globally. He made the remark during a visit to visited a reprocessing facility for spent nuclear fuel in the village of Rokkasho in Aomori Prefecture.

Comments

Emphyrio

Nuclear Power is the most vile, downright evil technology ever foisted upon mankind. It is Death - that's all. A complete abomination. Anybody who still promotes it is either so ignorant or ill-informed they are unfit for purpose or criminally insane, one or the other. This is not an intemperate remark - this is an understatement.

60 years of Nuclear Power has so far produced poison, death, cancer, bankruptcy and war - not power too cheap to meter. It must be stopped and the billions and billions it costs used to produce many times its electrical capacity in clean renewable power.

mahonj

I disagree.

Nuclear power is the only non CO2 technology that scales properly. Wind and solar are intermittent. Wave and tidal are small scale. hydro is mostly tapped out.

Fossil fuels are becoming scarce and should be husbanded for transport use until batteries improve by a factor of 2 - 4x.
If you compare the number of people killed per GWhour for nuclear, coal, oil, gas, you will find out that nuclear power comes out well.
If you factor in the number of deaths in the war in Iraq and various other oil wars, it further skews it.
Certainly there are problems - Chernobyl killed many people and rendered a large area uninhabitable, and waste will have to be kept secure for thousands of years, but the alternative is burning coal, and accelerating global warming, which is probably worse.

There are no simple solutions to maintaining a technological civilization with decent standards of living, so we better just make the best of what we have, which includes nuclear.

Nuclear currently produces 18% of the world's electricity and there has been no bad accident since Chernobyl, which killed about 60 people up front, with a further 4000 to follow (according to the UN).

In Ireland alone, we have lost about 9K people to road traffic accidents since 1986. It is not a direct comparison, but it helps scale the death rates.

In America, 25000 people per year are estimated to die from the effects of burning coal.

People need to deal with the risk of Nuclear along with other risks - a death is a death, whether from cancer or asthma - neither is very pleasant.

If people in the west are too scared to use it, there are plenty of developing countries who will use it, and benefit when the lights go dim over Europe (excluding France).

A lot more people will die from the effects of poverty and societal collapse if we run out of power, than will die from Nuclear power.

G.R.L. Cowan, hydrogen-to-boron convert

when governments allow their citizens to switch to nuclear energy, governments lose money. The recent price of a uranium-tonne-equivalent in natural gas was $5.2 million, inclusive of royalties but not of special end-user taxes. A tonne of the real thing costs less than $0.2 million, and at that sort of price has been being prospected at ten times the rate of use.

So if you want to make the tax man your friend by pretending to be irrational, there are several nuclear-energy-related options. Why would the UN's opinion on the future death toll from Chernobyl carry any weight when the UN depends on discretionary spending by member governments, i.e., on fossil fuel tax revenues, and when naturally occurring radiation hotspots have not shown such effects.

The comments to this entry are closed.