DOCSLIB.ORG

The Role of Policy in Reviving and Expanding the United States' Global

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Role of Policy in Reviving and Expanding the United States' Global THE ROLE OF POLICY IN REVIVING AND EXPANDING THE UNITED STATES’ GLOBAL NUCLEAR LEADERSHIP Timothy A. Frazier MARCH 2017 B | CHAPTER NAME ABOUT THE CENTER ON GLOBAL ENERGY POLICY The Center on Global Energy Policy provides independent, balanced, data-driven analysis to help policymakers navigate the complex world of energy. We approach energy as an economic, security, and environmental concern. And we draw on the resources of a world-class institution, faculty with real-world experience, and a location in the world’s finance and media capital. Visit us at energypolicy.columbia.edu facebook.com/ColumbiaUEnergy twitter.com/ColumbiaUEnergy ABOUT THE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS SIPA’s mission is to empower people to serve the global public interest. Our goal is to foster economic growth, sustainable development, social progress, and democratic governance by educating public policy professionals, producing policy-related research, and conveying the results to the world. Based in New York City, with a student body that is 50 percent international and educational partners in cities around the world, SIPA is the most global of public policy schools. For more information, please visit www.sipa.columbia.edu THE ROLE OF POLICY IN REVIVING AND EXPANDING THE UNITED STATES’ GLOBAL NUCLEAR LEADERSHIP Timothy A. Frazier* MARCH 2017 * Timothy A. Frazier is a former Department of Energy career employee with almost twenty-three years of experience working with and managing nuclear programs for the department. He served at senior levels in the department’s Ofce of Nuclear Energy. During the Bush administration, he was a senior technical adviser, and during the Obama administration, he was the designated federal ofcer for the president’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. He is currently a nuclear consultant working with clients on nuclear waste policy, nuclear energy policy, nonproliferation, community involvement and communications, and space nuclear power systems. Columbia University in the City of New York energypolicy.columbia.edu | MARCH 2017 | 1 THE ROLE OF POLICY IN REVIVING AND EXPANDING THE UNITED STATES’ GLOBAL NUCLEAR LEADERSHIP ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to thank Nicola de Blasio, Jason Bordoff, Richard Nephew, and Matthew Robinson, as well as several expert blind reviewers, for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. This paper was made possible due, in part, to a grant from the Sasakawa Peace Foundation. This policy paper represents the research and views of the author. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Center on Global Energy Policy. The paper may be subject to further revision. 2 | CENTER ON GLOBAL ENERGY POLICY | COLUMBIA SIPA THE ROLE OF POLICY IN REVIVING AND EXPANDING THE UNITED STATES’ GLOBAL NUCLEAR LEADERSHIP TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Preface .................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Historical Perspective ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Atoms for Peace .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Atomic Energy Commission ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Joint Committee on Atomic Energy ............................................................................................................................ 10 Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 ............................................................................................................................. 11 Changing views on the Fuel Cycle ................................................................................................................................. 11 Reprocessing ................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Enrichment ........................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Nuclear R&D .................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project ........................................................................................................................... 13 Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Experimental Breeder Reactor II ................................................................................................................................... 14 Energy Policy Act of 2005 ............................................................................................................................................ 14 Global Nuclear Energy Partnership ............................................................................................................................ 15 Obama Administration’s Decision to Terminate GNEP ............................................................................................. 17 Yucca Mountain ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future and the Administration’s Response .............................. 19 The MOX Project ........................................................................................................................................................... 22 State of Play for Nuclear Power in the United States ............................................................................................. 24 R & D ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Nuclear Power Reactors ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 Nuclear Fuel Cycle .............................................................................................................................................................. 25 Nonproliferation Policy Decisions Impacting US Leadership Abroad .................................................................. 26 Reprocessing .................................................................................................................................................................. 26 123 Agreements ............................................................................................................................................................... 26 Export Controls .............................................................................................................................................................. 26 Policy Recommendations to Revive and Expand US Global Nuclear Leadership ............................................. 27 Presidential Policy Statement on the United States’ Commitment to Nuclear Leadership ............................... 27 Develop World-Class Nuclear Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 28 Nonproliferation Views .................................................................................................................................................. 28 Yucca Mountain ............................................................................................................................................................... 28 The MOX Project ........................................................................................................................................................... 28 Enrichment Capability .................................................................................................................................................... 28 Maintain Current Nuclear Fleet ................................................................................................................................... 29 Become the World Supplier of Nuclear Technology ................................................................................................. 29 Lead in the Development and Marketing of Advanced Innovative Reactors ..................................................... 30 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nuclear Renaissance by Jone-Lin Wang and Christopher J
    Revisiting Nuclear Renaissance by Jone-Lin Wang and Christopher J. Hansen Critical milestones in the first wave of new nuclear development in the USA may prove decisive. overnments and businesses around the globe have countries — China, India, Japan, South Korea and the moved beyond talking to real action to renew USA. Gdevelopment of nuclear power, and have created good prospects for a major nuclear expansion over the com- In the USA, several dozen reactors are in various stages of ing decades. Over the past few years, high fossil fuel prices, proposal development, while international nuclear vendors energy security and climate change concerns and increas- and service providers are forming new alliances. Finally, ing urgency about reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emis- rising uranium prices have led to development of new sions have all converged to improve the position of nuclear mines. power relative to other options. However, critical milestones in the first wave of new In the USA, where no new reactor has been ordered in 28 nuclear development will provide insights into whether and years, these trends, plus excellent performance of the exist- how well new nuclear development is proceeding. Such key ing nuclear fleet and financial incentives in the Energy near-term milestones are: Policy Act of 2005, have led to a race to develop new nuclear power reactors. In Asia, where the building of new nuclear v Late 2007–2008 — Submission of construction and plants never stopped, several countries have recently upped operation license (COL) applications; their target for new nuclear capacity. In Western Europe, a new reactor is under construction for the first time in more v 2007-2008 — Ordering long lead-time items such as than a decade, and a second one is not far behind.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 2.Iii.1. Fissionable Isotopes1
    FISSIONABLE ISOTOPES Charles P. Blair Last revised: 2012 “While several isotopes are theoretically fissionable, RANNSAD defines fissionable isotopes as either uranium-233 or 235; plutonium 238, 239, 240, 241, or 242, or Americium-241. See, Ackerman, Asal, Bale, Blair and Rethemeyer, Anatomizing Radiological and Nuclear Non-State Adversaries: Identifying the Adversary, p. 99-101, footnote #10, TABLE 2.III.1. FISSIONABLE ISOTOPES1 Isotope Availability Possible Fission Bare Critical Weapon-types mass2 Uranium-233 MEDIUM: DOE reportedly stores Gun-type or implosion-type 15 kg more than one metric ton of U- 233.3 Uranium-235 HIGH: As of 2007, 1700 metric Gun-type or implosion-type 50 kg tons of HEU existed globally, in both civilian and military stocks.4 Plutonium- HIGH: A separated global stock of Implosion 10 kg 238 plutonium, both civilian and military, of over 500 tons.5 Implosion 10 kg Plutonium- Produced in military and civilian 239 reactor fuels. Typically, reactor Plutonium- grade plutonium (RGP) consists Implosion 40 kg 240 of roughly 60 percent plutonium- Plutonium- 239, 25 percent plutonium-240, Implosion 10-13 kg nine percent plutonium-241, five 241 percent plutonium-242 and one Plutonium- percent plutonium-2386 (these Implosion 89 -100 kg 242 percentages are influenced by how long the fuel is irradiated in the reactor).7 1 This table is drawn, in part, from Charles P. Blair, “Jihadists and Nuclear Weapons,” in Gary A. Ackerman and Jeremy Tamsett, ed., Jihadists and Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Growing Threat (New York: Taylor and Francis, 2009), pp. 196-197. See also, David Albright N 2 “Bare critical mass” refers to the absence of an initiator or a reflector.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nuclear Waste Primer September 2016 What Is Nuclear Waste?
    The Nuclear Waste Primer September 2016 What is Nuclear Waste? Nuclear waste is the catch-all term for anything contaminated with radioactive material. Nuclear waste can be broadly divided into three categories: • Low-level waste (LLW), comprised of protective clothing, medical waste, and other lightly-contaminated items • Transuranic waste (TRU), comprised of long-lived isotopes heavier than uranium • High-level waste (HLW), comprised of spent nuclear fuel and other highly-radioactive materials Low-level waste is relatively short-lived and easy to handle. Currently, four locations for LLW disposal exist in the United States. Two of them, Energy Solutions in Clive, Utah and Waste Control Specialists in Andrews, Texas, accept waste from any U.S. state. Transuranic waste is often a byproduct of nuclear weapons production and contains long-lived radioactive elements heavier than uranium, like plutonium and americium. Currently, the U.S. stores TRU waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico. High-level waste includes spent nuclear fuel and the most radioactive materials produced by nuclear weapons production. Yucca Mountain is the currently designated high-level waste repository for the United States. 1 | What is Spent Nuclear Fuel? Spent nuclear fuel (SNF), alternatively referred to as used nuclear fuel, is the primary byproduct of nuclear reactors. In commercial power reactors in the U.S., fuel begins as uranium oxide clad in a thin layer of zirconium-aluminum cladding. After several years inside of the reactor, around fi ve percent of the uranium has been converted in some way, ranging from short-lived and highly radioactive fi ssion products to long-lived actinides like plutonium, americium, and neptunium.
    [Show full text]
  • Scotland, Nuclear Energy Policy and Independence Raphael J. Heffron
    Scotland, Nuclear Energy Policy and Independence EPRG Working Paper 1407 Cambridge Working Paper in Economics 1457 Raphael J. Heffron and William J. Nuttall Abstract This paper examines the role of nuclear energy in Scotland, and the concerns for Scotland as it votes for independence. The aim is to focus directly on current Scottish energy policy and its relationship to nuclear energy. The paper does not purport to advise on a vote for or against Scottish independence but aims to further the debate in an underexplored area of energy policy that will be of value whether Scotland secures independence or further devolution. There are four central parts to this paper: (1) consideration of the Scottish electricity mix; (2) an analysis of a statement about nuclear energy made by the Scottish energy minister; (3) examination of nuclear energy issues as presented in the Scottish Independence White Paper; and (4) the issue of nuclear waste is assessed. A recurrent theme in the analysis is that whether one is for, against, or indifferent to new nuclear energy development, it highlights a major gap in Scotland’s energy and environmental policy goals. Too often, the energy policy debate from the Scottish Government perspective has been reduced to a low-carbon energy development debate between nuclear energy and renewable energy. There is little reflection on how to reduce Scottish dependency on fossil fuels. For Scotland to aspire to being a low-carbon economy, to decarbonising its electricity market, and to being a leader within the climate change community, it needs to tackle the issue of how to stop the continuation of burning fossil fuels.
    [Show full text]
  • 小型飛翔体／海外 ［Format 2］ Technical Catalog Category
    小型飛翔体／海外 ［Format 2］ Technical Catalog Category Airborne contamination sensor Title Depth Evaluation of Entrained Products (DEEP) Proposed by Create Technologies Ltd & Costain Group PLC １．DEEP is a sensor analysis software for analysing contamination. DEEP can distinguish between surface contamination and internal / absorbed contamination. The software measures contamination depth by analysing distortions in the gamma spectrum. The method can be applied to data gathered using any spectrometer. Because DEEP provides a means of discriminating surface contamination from other radiation sources, DEEP can be used to provide an estimate of surface contamination without physical sampling. DEEP is a real-time method which enables the user to generate a large number of rapid contamination assessments- this data is complementary to physical samples, providing a sound basis for extrapolation from point samples. It also helps identify anomalies enabling targeted sampling startegies. DEEP is compatible with small airborne spectrometer/ processor combinations, such as that proposed by the ARM-U project – please refer to the ARM-U proposal for more details of the air vehicle. Figure 1: DEEP system core components are small, light, low power and can be integrated via USB, serial or Ethernet interfaces. 小型飛翔体／海外 Figure 2: DEEP prototype software ２．Past experience (plants in Japan, overseas plant, applications in other industries, etc) Create technologies is a specialist R&D firm with a focus on imaging and sensing in the nuclear industry. Createc has developed and delivered several novel nuclear technologies, including the N-Visage gamma camera system. Costainis a leading UK construction and civil engineering firm with almost 150 years of history.
    [Show full text]
  • NUCLEAR Unwasted NUCLEAR Unwasted NEWS
    N ational Conference of State Legislatures NUCLEAR unWASTEd NEWS A QUARTERLY S UMMARY OF GENERATION, TRANSPORTATION, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL ISSUES JANUARY - MARCH 2008 V OL. 3, NO . 1 Headline CRS Report Assesses Global Access to Nuclear Power 2/29 With the heralding of a coming nuclear renaissance in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Bush administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), the Congressional Research Service released a report in January titled, Managing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Policy Implications of Expanding Global Access to Nuclear Power. The 2005 Energy Policy Act outlined provisions authorizing streamlined licensing for new nuclear plants, combining construction and operating permits, and providing tax credits for nuclear power. Thirty new applications or early site permits for reactors have been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and 150 have been planned or proposed globally. Nearly a dozen are already under construction overseas. With the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) planning to spend billions of dollars to advance nuclear technology in the U.S., other countries have similar ideas and want access to the benefits of nuclear power. Advances in nuclear technologies are attractive to those who seek to add energy options to the mostly fossil fuel genera- tion the world depends on today. Concerns about climate change, however, are complicated by fears that spreading enrichment and reprocessing technologies may lead to proliferation of weapons-grade nuclear material. Proposals of global access to nuclear power range from: offering countries access to nuclear power with a formal commit- ment to abstain from enrichment and reprocessing; to a de facto approach where a country does not operate fuel cycle facilities but makes no direct commitment to other nations; to nations having no restrictions at all.
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling-Enhanced Innovations Trailblazing Nuclear Energy Reinvigoration (MEITNER) Overview
    Modeling-Enhanced Innovations Trailblazing Nuclear Energy Reinvigoration (MEITNER) Overview B. PROGRAM OVERVIEW 1. Summary Nuclear reactor plants are complex systems where many types and scales of technologies must work together seamlessly. Design choices at each of those scales and for each of those technologies impact the rest of the system in terms of functionality, cost, and constructability. For nuclear energy to contribute in the coming decades, the next generation of nuclear reactor plants need to simultaneously achieve “walkaway” safe and secure operation, extremely low construction capital costs, and dramatically shorter construction and commissioning times than currently-available plants. To attain these goals, new, innovative, enabling technologies for existing advanced reactor designs are needed. The development of these enabling technologies requires understanding the inter-relatedness of design choices. Thus, ARPA-E encourages a rethinking of how pieces of the nuclear reactor system fit together when developing these enabling technologies. Through the MEITNER1 (Modeling-Enhanced Innovations Trailblazing Nuclear Energy Reinvigoration) program, ARPA-E seeks to identify and develop innovative technologies to enable the advanced nuclear reactor design community to mature their designs for future commercial deployment. These enabling technologies can establish the basis for a modern, domestic supply chain supporting nuclear technology. As provided in this FOA, ARPA-E will select multiple Awardees (Prime Recipients) to develop
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power Reactors in California
    Nuclear Power Reactors in California As of mid-2012, California had one operating nuclear power plant, the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near San Luis Obispo. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) owns the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, which consists of two units. Unit 1 is a 1,073 megawatt (MW) Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) which began commercial operation in May 1985, while Unit 2 is a 1,087 MW PWR, which began commercial operation in March 1986. Diablo Canyon's operation license expires in 2024 and 2025 respectively. California currently hosts three commercial nuclear power facilities in various stages of decommissioning.1 Under all NRC operating licenses, once a nuclear plant ceases reactor operations, it must be decommissioned. Decommissioning is defined by federal regulation (10 CFR 50.2) as the safe removal of a facility from service along with the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits termination of the NRC operating license. In preparation for a plant’s eventual decommissioning, all nuclear plant owners must maintain trust funds while the plants are in operation to ensure sufficient amounts will be available to decommission their facilities and manage the spent nuclear fuel.2 Spent fuel can either be reprocessed to recover usable uranium and plutonium, or it can be managed as a waste for long-term ultimate disposal. Since fuel re-processing is not commercially available in the United States, spent fuel is typically being held in temporary storage at reactor sites until a permanent long-term waste disposal option becomes available.3 In 1976, the state of California placed a moratorium on the construction and licensing of new nuclear fission reactors until the federal government implements a solution to radioactive waste disposal.
    [Show full text]
  • Ards for the Uranium Fuel Cycle PART 191—ENVIRONMENTAL RADI
    § 190.10 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–11 Edition) period in which he is engaged in car- ance, and the schedule for achieving rying out any operation which is part conformance with the standards. of a nuclear fuel cycle. (l) Regulatory agency means the gov- § 190.12 Effective date. ernment agency responsible for issuing (a) The standards in § 190.10(a) shall regulations governing the use of be effective December 1, 1979, except sources of radiation or radioactive ma- that for doses arising from operations terials or emissions therefrom and car- associated with the milling of uranium rying out inspection and enforcement ore the effective date shall be Decem- activities to assure compliance with ber 1, 1980. such regulations. (b) The standards in § 190.10(b) shall be effective December 1, 1979, except Subpart B—Environmental Stand- that the standards for krypton-85 and ards for the Uranium Fuel iodine-129 shall be effective January 1, Cycle 1983, for any such radioactive materials generated by the fission process after § 190.10 Standards for normal oper- these dates. ations. Operations covered by this subpart PART 191—ENVIRONMENTAL RADI- shall be conducted in such a manner as ATION PROTECTION STANDARDS to provide reasonable assurance that: FOR MANAGEMENT AND DIS- (a) The annual dose equivalent does POSAL OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, not exceed 25 millirems to the whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and HIGH-LEVEL AND TRANSURANIC 25 millirems to any other organ of any RADIOACTIVE WASTES member of the public as the result of exposures to planned discharges of ra- Subpart A—Environmental Standards for dioactive materials, radon and its Management and Storage daughters excepted, to the general en- Sec.
    [Show full text]
  • Fuel Geometry Options for a Moderated Low-Enriched Uranium Kilowatt-Class Space Nuclear Reactor T ⁎ Leonardo De Holanda Mencarinia,B,Jeffrey C
    Nuclear Engineering and Design 340 (2018) 122–132 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Nuclear Engineering and Design journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nucengdes Fuel geometry options for a moderated low-enriched uranium kilowatt-class space nuclear reactor T ⁎ Leonardo de Holanda Mencarinia,b,Jeffrey C. Kinga, a Nuclear Science and Engineering Program, Colorado School of Mines (CSM), 1500 Illinois St, Hill Hall, 80401 Golden, CO, USA b Subdivisão de Dados Nucleares - Instituto de Estudos Avançados (IEAv), Trevo Coronel Aviador José Alberto Albano do Amarante, n 1, 12228-001 São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil ABSTRACT A LEU-fueled space reactor would avoid the security concerns inherent with Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) fuel and could be attractive to signatory countries of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or commercial interests. The HEU-fueled Kilowatt Reactor Using Stirling Technology (KRUSTY) serves as a basis for a similar reactor fueled with LEU fuel. Based on MCNP6™ neutronics performance estimates, the size of a 5 kWe reactor fueled with 19.75 wt% enriched uranium-10 wt% molybdenum alloy fuel is adjusted to match the excess reactivity of KRUSTY. Then, zirconium hydride moderator is added to the core in four different configurations (a homogeneous fuel/moderator mixture and spherical, disc, and helical fuel geometries) to reduce the mass of uranium required to produce the same excess reactivity, decreasing the size of the reactor. The lowest mass reactor with a given moderator represents a balance between the reflector thickness and core diameter needed to maintain the multiplication factor equal to 1.035, with a H/D ratio of 1.81.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparing for Nuclear Waste Transportation
    Preparing for Nuclear Waste Transportation Technical Issues that Need to Be Addressed in Preparing for a Nationwide Effort to Transport Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste A Report to the U.S. Congress and the Secretary of Energy September 2019 U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board This page intentionally left blank. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Preparing for Nuclear Waste Transportation Technical Issues That Need to Be Addressed in Preparing for a Nationwide Effort to Transport Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste A Report to the U.S. Congress and the Secretary of Energy September 2019 This page intentionally left blank. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Jean M. Bahr, Ph.D., Chair University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin Steven M. Becker, Ph.D. Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia Susan L. Brantley, Ph.D. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania Allen G. Croff, Nuclear Engineer, M.B.A. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee Efi Foufoula-Georgiou, Ph.D. University of California Irvine, Irvine, California Tissa Illangasekare, Ph.D., P.E. Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado Kenneth Lee Peddicord, Ph.D., P.E. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas Paul J. Turinsky, Ph.D. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina Mary Lou Zoback, Ph.D. Stanford University, Stanford, California Note: Dr. Linda Nozick of Cornell University served as a Board member from July 28, 2011, to May 9, 2019. During that time, Dr. Nozick provided valuable contributions to this report. iii This page intentionally left blank. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Staff Executive Staff Nigel Mote Executive Director Neysa Slater-Chandler Director of Administration Senior Professional Staff* Bret W.
    [Show full text]
  • AREVA and MHI Agree on Collaboration in Nuclear Energy - Memorandum of Understanding Signed in Tokyo
    AREVA and MHI Agree on Collaboration in Nuclear Energy - Memorandum of Understanding Signed in Tokyo - 2006-10-19 AREVA Group Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd Tokyo, October 19, 2006 -AREVA, the world's largest business group in the nuclear energy field, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) have agreed to collaborate in the area of nuclear energy, according to a memorandum of understanding signed today in Tokyo by Anne Lauvergeon, CEO of AREVA, and Kazuo Tsukuda, President of MHI. The "nuclear renaissance" has brought about new challenges for the whole nuclear industry, as growth and new expectations of clients require significant mobilization of large financial and human resources. Facing the tremendous market changes, AREVA and MHI have decided to establish a powerful and ground-breaking alliance built on their historical successful relationship* and respective human and industrial capabilities. As a first step, the two companies have already agreed to develop a 3rd-generation 1,000 MWe nuclear power plant expected to attract great market demand. The agreement covers other fields of possible cooperation such as procurement, services, fuel cycle and new types of reactors. AREVA CEO Anne Lauvergeon noted, "This alliance has been worked out on the ground of mutual trust and common vision. Our technical innovation capabilities and our geographical complementarities will bring to our clients, in the field of nuclear power plants and services, unequalled solutions." MHI President Kazuo Tsukuda stated, "We at MHI are all excited about this collaboration with AREVA. It will enable to provide the nuclear power plant technologies and experience accumulated by the two companies around the world in nuclear power generation.
    [Show full text]