Monday, May 3, 2010
Manganese, Magnesium and Molybdenum, Strategic Metals Key to Green Technology
Will Oil Spill Impede Offshore Plans?
The news of the Gulf oil spill are developing in front of our horrified eyes. The event is quickly becoming one of the worst environmental catastrophes on record. The BP facility has been leaking and will continue to leak millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf since it exploded on April 20, and could cause serious damage to coastal regions of Louisiana. As a result, President Obama may have to reconsider his proposal to expand drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and along much of the Atlantic Coast, as does the draft climate and energy bill developed by Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joe Lieberman, I/D-Conn. This sobering situation could have a major effect on the administration’s plans to expand offshore drilling.
As in the case of nuclear energy or coal extraction from deep mines, off - shore drilling by its own nature involves potentially catastrophic risks, namely small probability events with enormous consequences. As with nuclear energy, the upside is relatively small: nuclear fuel is very limited so nuclear power cannot ...
The news of the Gulf oil spill are developing in front of our horrified eyes. The event is quickly becoming one of the worst environmental catastrophes on record. The BP facility has been leaking and will continue to leak millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf since it exploded on April 20, and could cause serious damage to coastal regions of Louisiana. As a result, President Obama may have to reconsider his proposal to expand drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and along much of the Atlantic Coast, as does the draft climate and energy bill developed by Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joe Lieberman, I/D-Conn. This sobering situation could have a major effect on the administration’s plans to expand offshore drilling.
As in the case of nuclear energy or coal extraction from deep mines, off - shore drilling by its own nature involves potentially catastrophic risks, namely small probability events with enormous consequences. As with nuclear energy, the upside is relatively small: nuclear fuel is very limited so nuclear power cannot replace fossil fuels, and off - shore drilling similarly has a limited impact on the nation's consumption of oil. So the upside is limited. The downside, however, is enormous. We are seeing right now what an off - shore drilling catastrophe can imply to our nation, costing lives, asset losses in coastal areas, business interruption, massive damage to fishing, to unique environmental assets and an untold number of species. Another event of this nature is catastrophic climate change, a risk that the Pentagon has recently identified as one of the worst threats to national security. Are we sure these catastrophic risks will happen? No, we are not, and the probabilities are small. But this is also the case in the burning of one's home, an event that has a small probability yet is so devastating that most people do insure against it. One insures against catastrophic events whenever possible and reasonable.
Reasonable insurance is available in this case. It involves avoiding off - shore drilling and using other energy sources that do not involve catastrophic risks. To think properly about the problem, one has to focus on the worst that can happen, as well as on the upside. The upside, as already mentioned, is limited. And we can see what is the worst with off - shore drilling - it is now in front of our eyes. Small upside, large downside. The reality is that we do have choices. For example, developing wind and solar energy instead of off - shore oil is a form of insurance policy. Solar and wind involve no catastrophic risks, and the value of the 'insurance' that they provide cannot be overestimated. Wind energy is limited in supply but concentrated solar power (CSP) is a secure source of energy and it is so abundant that it can easily replace fossil fuels (which nuclear energy cannot do, since nuclear fuel is scarce) and is almost competitive in cost with fossil fuels. All of this CSP can do without catastrophic political risks such as interrupted oil supplies, without the costs of lives lost in mining accidents or off - shore oil spills, and without potentially catastrophic climate change. The small additional cost of CSP while it is being commercially developed will dissapear as the technologies go through their "learning by doing" cost drops. In any case, the insurance factor that CSP provides over off - shore oil is worth the small additional cost. It pays to be prudent: better safe than sorry.
As in the case of the financial catastrophe that grips our nation and the world economy since 2008, off - shore drilling involve catastrophic risks that are perhaps one in fifty or a hundred year events and seem unlikely to happen - until they happen. Now they are happening.
Our tendency to ignore infrequent risks because of their small probability has to be change. This tendency is based on existing theories of risk management - introduced by John Von Neumann after WWII - they weigh the loss by its probability and therefore ignore rare events with devastating consequences. We need to follow a different approach - one that I am proposing in theoretical as well as empirical terms, including practical methodological approaches I am developing for the US Air Force that can have a positive bearing on national security (see also attachment).
It is human nature to ignore risks that are infrequent, and such insensitivity is built into our current approaches to risk management. But denial does not work and increases the losses after the fact. Catastrophic risks must be faced and measured properly, they must be adequetly managed and mitigated. The small probability of their occurence should not blind us about the enormous consequences at stake. My suggestion on how to do this is practical and it also involves changing the foundations of statistics, providing a rigorous, systematic and practical way to measure, anticipate and mitigate catastrophic risks that considers the worst consequences along with the averages. It is a matter of common sense that can save many lives, avoid damage to national security, help secure critical supplies of energy for our nation while avoiding technologies - like off - shore drilling - that seem productive until one takes into consideration the catastrophes that they can unleash, and the attendant enormous losses.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
AREVA And Fresno Nuclear Energy Group Ink MOU For Clean Energy Park
According to the MOU agreement, AREVA and FNEG will work together on the site selection and initial development of a nominal 1,600 Megawatt U.S. EPR reactor
- By Stephen Heiser -
AREVA and the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group, LLC (FNEG) have announced that they have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to develop the country's most advanced Clean Energy Park near Fresno, California, including nuclear and renewable generation.
According to the MOU agreement, AREVA and FNEG will work together on the site selection and initial development of a nominal 1,600 Megawatt U.S. EPR reactor. The agreement also includes potential development of other AREVA energy technologies such as concentrated solar power.
"Our goal is to create a power-producing infrastructure that combines clean electric energy sources, including nuclear, solar and future technologies," said John Hutson, president of FNEG. "We’ll begin with solar because that’s what’s available in Western Fresno County right now."
"We look forward to helping to realize a California Clean Energy Park. This agreement with FNEG is an important step toward reaching our goal of developing a fleet of U.S. EPR reactors, which will produce cost-effective, CO2-free electricity, spur local investment and manufacturing, and create thousands of jobs,” said Jacques Besnainou, CEO of AREVA Inc. “AREVA, which holds a complete renewable energy portfolio, is also pleased with the potential development of concentrated solar power generation as part of this Clean Energy Park.”
John Hutson added, "Our vision of a Clean Energy Park in California's Central Valley would produce large amounts of clean electricity and usable water for our state's critical agricultural industry while meeting our self-imposed commitment to reduce greenhouse gases."
FNEG and AREVA are considering dozens of promising sites in the Central San Joaquin Valley. Once a site is selected, work will begin on the solar phase of the Clean Energy Park.
Construction of the nuclear facility will create up to 11,000 direct and indirect jobs, and more than 400 permanent jobs upon completion. Additionally, the project will generate billions of dollars of regional economic investment. When complete, the solar and nuclear plants will produce clean, constant, reliable, carbon-free electricity for more than 1.6 million households.
As a leading U.S. nuclear vendor and a significant, growing player in the renewable energies and electricity transmission and distribution sectors, AREVA Inc.’s 6,000 U.S. employees are committed to serving the nation and paving the way for the future of the energy market. With 45 locations across the nation and $2.4 billion in energy revenues in 2009, AREVA Inc., through its subsidiaries, combines U.S. leadership, access to worldwide expertise and a proven track record of performance. In the U.S. and in more than 100 countries around the world, AREVA is engaged in the 21st century’s greatest challenges: making energy available to all, protecting the planet, and acting responsibly toward future generations. AREVA Inc. is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.
Published Apr 30 2010, 09:56 AM by steveheiser Filed under: AREVA, Memorandum of Understanding , agreement, MOU, ENERGY, nuclear, power, nuclear power, deal, Fresno Nuclear Energy Group, fneg, sign, ink, Clean energy park