Areva said today that the acquisition marks its entry into the solar thermal power market, where it intends to be the leader. The market itself is expected to grow 20 per cent annually over the next decade. This is just the latest in a string of acquisitions and deals aimed at broadening Areva’s portfolio of renewable energy products and services. The company has been pushing heavily into biomass power and has been building biomass/biogas plants in the U.S., Brazil, India, Thailand and other countries. It is dabbling in hydrogen production and fuel cell systems, and through its acquisition of Germany’s Multibrid is trying to establish itself as a future leader in offshore wind.

It’s going to take big, deep-pocketed companies like Areva to really push deployment of solar thermal and other promising renewables, so this acquisition of Ausra is a good sign of where the market is heading. Given that the nuclear renaissance simply isn’t materializing as expected, it’s wise for Areva and other big energy conglomerates to hedge their bets.

After three and a half years of extensive study, which included exhaustive consultation with industry experts and review of peer-reviewed literature, the policy think tank released a report yesterday that says the nuclear industry will have a hard enough time just replacing older reactors in the existing global fleet. Fact is, nuclear’s contribution to the global power mix since 2000 has fallen, as has the number of reactors in the fleet. Meanwhile, 2008 was the first year since the mid-1950s that no new nuclear reactor was connected to the grid. There have been refurbishments and life extensions, and there has been a lot of talk about building new reactors, but so far the massive, fast-paced expansion the industry has touted simply isn’t materializing. There will be some modest growth, but CIGI doesn’t expect nuclear will play a major role in combatting climate change before 2030. Between now and then, it also says alternatives — solar, wind, energy efficiency, conservation, smart grid technologies — will gain momentum and may ultimately prevent nuclear projects from getting a foothold. “Research and development is proceeding at such a pace for most of these alternatives that improvements in performance and cost will likely arrive faster than for nuclear technology,” the study concluded.

Think about it: by 2030 it’s quite possible we’ll have energy storage breakthroughs that give intermittant renewables baseload characteristics, but instead of deploying them in massive multibillion-dollar chunks, they could be part of a distributed energy system that locates power closer to consumers, and deploys it quickly and when needed.

CIGI lists a number of issues that have held back expansion of the nuclear power market:

• High upfront cost — reactors that can cost up to $10 billion a piece.
• Labour shortages resulting from boomer retirements and lack of investment in training and education.
• Long construction lead time.
• High risk of cost overruns and delay.
• High reliance on government subsidies and public backstopping.
• Ongoing concerns with waste management.
• Alternatives becoming increasingly more competitive.

Now, the nuclear industry isn’t oblivious to these issues, and indeed, there is a move underway to build smaller reactors that can be built more quickly, on time, and at a more manageable cost and pace. Also, these mini reactors would fit better into a distributed generation model, and attempts at developing small thorium-fuelled reactors would address waste management and nuclear proliferation concerns. CIGI acknowledged these developments, but said we’re not likely to see thorium reactors or mini-reactors being adopted in any significant way before 2030 — again, too late to be relied on for climate-change mitigation.

All this said, there will be growth — in China, in India, and a handful of other countries — and there will be refurbishments. This should keep the industry busy for the next couple of decades. No jobs are likely at risk here. Over the long term, however, the future of the nuclear industry would appear more uncertain.

The column goes on to discuss the benefits of small-scale nuclear power — i.e. less than 300 mw — and how a number of companies (as well as Sandia National Laboratories) are pursuing the market. In fact, the president of the American Nuclear Society says small nukes are now a big focus of the U.S. industry, which is beginning to acknowledge that utilities want a product that’s modular, scalable, less risky, and potentially less expensive than big reactors. The key is to build them in a factory setting using robotic assembly, and then deliver them filled with enough fuel to operate for up to 20 years without refuelling. The reactors would be low maintenance, have passive safety features, and would be buried underground. I’m not a huge fan of nuclear, but if we are to have it, I’m in favour of this form of distributed nuclear generation.

But there is a silver lining. Ontario Power Generation saw its fossil-fuel generation, mostly coal, fall by a whopping two-thirds. It means that during the second quarter 91 per cent of electricity generated by OPG was free of greenhouse gases and other smog-causing emissions, thanks to our hydroelectric and nuclear fleet.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could hold the line on emissions as the economy recovers? That would happen if Premier Dalton McGuinty makes good on his promise to eliminate all coal-fired generation in the province by 2014 (actually, I believe the original target was 2007, then 2009, so we’re on promise No. 3). Rumour is McGuinty may attempt to beat the 2014 deadline just in time for the next election, and he may have a shot given the plunge in demand caused by the recession. But to do it, he’ll also need to convert some coal units so they can burn biomass, and have to push even harder on conservation, and he’ll need to move quickly to approve wind and hydroelectric projects in the province. Nuclear is not part of this equation, because any new plants or refurbishment projects wouldn’t be completed in time.

The next few years should be very interesting.

Been crazy busy this past week but there’s been no shortage of interesting news in the cleantech and green energy space, so I’ll summarize a few of them here instead of doing individual posts. BTW: Hope everyone is enjoying their summer.

Click to the next page to read about General Fusion’s new infusion of cash, new fluids that can make enhanced geothermal more efficient, a McKinsey report that details the incredible payback of investments in energy efficency, and a University of Calgary report that says Alberta would benefit tremendously by plugging into electric transportation.

* Vancouver-based General Fusion, which is trying to build a low-budget nuclear fusion power reactor, raised $9 million from private investors, which triggers a $4.5 million grant from Sustainable Development Technology Canada. It’s enough to get it through the first two-year phase of a four-year project that will see it design and build a test fusion reactor that can demonstrate “net gain.” Projected cost: $50 million. The company is aiming to build a 100 megawatt prototype power plant five years later — sometime before 2020, at least — which would beat the ITER project in France by, oh, two decades. And at an estimated $500 million it would come in at a fraction of the cost. Go, boys, go! (See MIT Technology Review story here).

* Another MIT Technology Review story takes a look at work being done at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory on a new type of heat-absorbing fluid that could be used with binary-cycle geothermal power projects to boost efficiency by 20 to 30 per cent. The fluid is a mixture of organic liquid and metal nanoparticles bonded by organic “linkers.” Researchers figure that the heat-trapping efficiency of the mixture, when used as a working fluid in a closed loop to extract heat from a primary fluid (i.e. the hot water pumped from underground) can improve the economics of enhanced geothermal power projects, either by allowing a plant to be built with a smaller heat exchanger (a big part of a plant’s cost) or by reducing the depth of drilling required to access heat in rock (i.e. the fluid allows the plant to do more with less underground heat). It may sound boring, but this is potentially a huge breakthrough for geothermal.

* I encourage you to read Joe Romm at Climate Progress and his post about a new report from consultancy giant McKinsey, which has found through comprehensive analysis that a $520 billion (U.S.) investment in energy efficiency in the United States through to 2020 would yield energy savings of more than $1.2 trillion — in other words, a payback of $680 million billion. “Such a program is estimated to reduce end-use energy consumption in 2020 by 9.1 quadrillion BTUs, roughly 23 per cent of projected demand, potentially abating up to 1.1 gigatons of CO2 annually.” McKinsey wisely included co-generation/CHP as part of its analysis — a crucial component that’s too often overlooked. As Romm points out, the savings and CO2 reductions are even more impressive considering McKinsey’s analysis doesn’t even touch on the transportation sector and potential for reductions there.

* Over at the University of Calgary, meanwhile, a report has been released that shows it would be a no-brainer for Alberta to embrace plug-in hybrid vehicles. “Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles could release 40 to 90 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta than conventional passenger vehicles,” researchers found. It’s an interesting conclusion, given that over 90 per cent of Alberta’s power generation comes from fossil-fuel based resources — coal, natural gas and oil — the highest in Canada. Now, we’ve seen studies before that suggest even with 100 per cent coal you still get emission reductions, but nowhere near 40 per cent, let alone 90 per cent. Getting those levels, researcher say, requires “smart charging systems” that could make the most of Alberta’s growing wind resources. In other words, an infrastructure that would know to charge cars only when the wind is blowing, typically at night. Of course, the potential for smart charging applies to any jurisdiction, but it’s good to see folks in Alberta giving it serious thought.

There’s a lot of rethinking going on in the utility sector these days. Utilities once intent on building new nuclear plants are now scrapping those plans and focusing instead of refurbishing existing  reactors. Last week Canadian nuclear operator Bruce Power announced it was withdrawing two new-build site licensing applications from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The company said it would concentrate resources instead on refurbishing several reactors at its site northwest of Toronto. Then Russia’s state nuclear company said it would cut back its new-build program by half. Exelon, the biggest nuclear owner and operator in the United States, has said it would halt all new-build efforts for at least three years (and possibly as much as 20) and instead move toward uprating the capacity of its existing 17 reactor units.

The common theme is simple: the economic downturn has reduced electricity demand and with it the need for new reactors. Utilities are also realizing that refurbishing/uprating units is cheaper than build anew. Exelon has said that uprating existing plants costs half as much as building new and carries far less risk. Investors, apparently, don’t like the risk involved with spending billions and billions of dollars on a 1o-year project when electricity demand is dropping, not climbing. As Murray Elston, a vice-president at Bruce Power told me, “We were not prepared for the decrease in electricity demand. I think it’s been a surprise to almost everyone.” And while you can argue that the downturn is a blip and that long term the power will be needed, it comes down to who’s paying the money. “We have to be prudent with our investors’ money and it makes us really refocus ourselves so we can be the best with the site we have.” Bruce Power has already been hit by the downturn because power coming from its existing fleet is often surplus and must be given away to balance the grid. This has affected the company’s cash flow and in some cases has forced it to temporarily shut down reactors to cope with the excess power supply.

China is forging ahead with its new nuke strategy, so the renaissance is taking off somewhere around the world — but not North America. Not yet, anyway. The hope is that renewables and conservation will have a chance to take root and show a meaningful contribution before electricity demand starts to pick up again. Maybe then, even in the face of an improving economy, we’ll realize that we can get by without building new nukes. Or maybe not. At least we’ve got two or three years to show what’s possible.

I can understand the Areva price (apparently it’s based on a similar bid for a plant being planned in Maryland), but like many I’m personally shocked at the high amount of the AECL bid. Yes, I wrote the story but like many have a difficult time believing such a high number. My sources, however, are quite credible.

I’ve yet to get any reply from the government or industry that denies or confirms these numbers. Premier Dalton McGuinty was scrummed by reporters earlier this morning and he didn’t refute the numbers, saying only that the process is confidential. McGuinty could have said something general like “The numbers are far off” or “Not even close” to dispute the article, but he didn’t. The $26 billion figure, by the way, almost completely consumes the budget for Ontario’s 20-year nuclear expansion strategy, as estimated in 2007 by the Ontario Power Authority. That budget was to cover a new build at Darlington and at least two refurbishment projects.

Perhaps Ontario doesn’t have to worry as much because it sits along Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, but I’m surprised that in other jurisdictions there hasn’t been more discussion related to the water requirements of thermoelectric power plants.

Water scarcity, after all, is considered one of the biggest negative outcomes of climate change, but not many people realize just how much water is required for a nuclear or coal (fossil fuel) power plant. The World Resources Institute estimates that nearly two out of every three gallons of fresh water drawn from the U.S. Southeast Southwest is used to cool power plants. One can draw similar conclusions for other regions. Nuclear plants, of course, are the biggest water hogs. You’ll recall that during the heat waves in Europe a few years back France had to ratched down nuclear output because it didn’t have enough water for cooling. It makes one wonder whether it makes sense to build hundreds of new nuclear plants, each with a life of more than 50 years, if a couple of decades down the road we find them crippled by water shortages.

Think about it: If a massive coal plant or nuclear plant had to pay for the amount of water it consumes, the same way individual homeowners must pay, the power would be prohibitively expense. So emissions aren’t the only thing not currently priced into power generation. Water use is a huge externality, and it’s just one more reason to favour renewables and distributed generation, particularly as part of any climate-change adaptation strategy.

Food for thought.

You can read the article for more details and a deeper explanation of how it works. General Fusion recently secured $13.9 million from Sustainable Development Technology Canada so it can pursue its prototype development, contingent on the company raising another $30 million or so from private investors. SDTC’s average deal size is around $3 million so the fact it’s giving General Fusion nearly five times that amount speaks to the credibility of what it’s doing.

My readers would know that I love an underdog, and this certaintly counts as one of them. Unfortunately, Canada doesn’t have a fusion program and all expertise and experience around nuclear technology is around fission reactors — i.e. Candu. But if General Fusion can show four years from now that its approach can achieve net-gain, the company will have no problem attracting investment and attention from some of the world’s best nuclear minds.

Sustainable Development Technlogy Canada just completed its 13th funding round, this time putting $53 million into 16 cleantech projects and bringing its total funding to $376 million. As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, SDTC only invests if private consortia come to the table with two-thirds of project funding. In total, 154 project have been funded with $1.3 billion in public-private funds.

Here are, in my opinion, some of the more interesting projects that got funded in this round:

Alterna Energy Inc. — This B.C.-based company is going to build and demonstrate a “biocarbon” production facility designed to process wood residues, such as bark, sawmill waste, forest slash and trees killed by pine beetle infestation. The facility will be able to turn 110,000 tonnes of wood residue into 25,000 tonnes of biocarbon annually. So what is biocarbon? Its physical and chemical properties are very similar to coal. Alterna’s process carbonizes the wood — or any other form of biomass – in about 1.5 hours and pelletizes it with virtually no external  energy inputs. The resulting pellets, because they closely resemble coal, can be used at existing coal-fired generating stations with limited modifications. Such a process could bode well for Ontario Power Generation, which wants to convert some coal-fired units to 100 per cent biomass. Perhaps biocarbon is the way to go. (I should point out that biocarbon is essentially biochar, which offers a great way to sequester carbon while reviving depleted soils and enhancing plant growth. Read previous post on biochar here).

General Fusion Inc. – Another B.C.-based company, General Fusion, has developed a technology that uses acoustic waves to create fusion reactors. The end goal is to produce inexpensive and plentiful electricity without greenhouse gas emissions, or long-lived radioactive waste. Under this project, the company will construct a full-scale engine that will demonstrate improved energy conversion efficiencies. The demonstration project will produce 600 megajoules of thermal energy per cycle.

Greenfield Ethanol Inc. — This Toronto-based ethanol producer will integrate a lignocellulosic process into an existing facility as part of a pre-commercial pilot. It will produce ethanol using corn cobs using a special pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis process that, if it works as planned, could be applied to first-generation ethanol facilities that, in turn, could be retrofitted to second generation facilities. The company believes it could produce 70 million litres per year of ethanol just on corn cobs by 2015.

Performance Plants Inc. — This company is based in Kingston, Ontario, and has developed a more efficient way to convert cellulosic feedstocks into ethanol by modifying the cell wall structure of cellulose fibres. In essence, the company’s process makes it easier for the cell walls to release useable sugars that are eventually converted into alcohols. This innovation will lead to lower energy consumption during ethanol production, a lower requirement for enzymes, and faster processing times. SDTC is providing $5.6 million in funding for this project.

SunCentral Inc. – Another B.C.-based company, SunCentral has developed a solar canopy illumination system that brings daylight inside multistory buildings to cut down on daytime lighting costs. It uses low cost tracking mirrors and simple light guides in a modular design. First it collects sunlight on the exterior façade of a building and then distributes it up to 20 metres into the building core. This technology is easy to retrofit to existing buildings undergoing renovations or, alternatively, it can be included in the design of new buildings. The company claims that energy savings on commercial building lighting will be at least 25 per cent.