The continued assertion that the climate-change challenge would not be solved until new technological innovations were urgently found for the production of electricity and transport fuels was false, Areva’s senior VP for research and innovation Alain Bucaille asserted on Tuesday.

Speaking at the 2009 French Energy Forum in Sandton, Bucaille said that many of the technology solutions that could help to halve carbon dioxide (CO2) emission by 2050 were either already available, or would be in place by 2015.

However, he acknowledged that the cost of deploying such solutions, both in the electricity and the transport environments, would be significantly higher that what was the case currently.

For instance, carbon capture and storage systems would, in Bucaille’s view, be proven in those territories where the geology existed to cater for such storage.

Such commercialisation would be given impetus by the fact that coal and nuclear would probably remain the mainstay base-load generation options for many years to come, even as renewable technologies were improved and played an increasing role in the power mix.

However, such capture and storage would add significantly to the cost of electricity production and would not be an option for about one-third of the globe, given that geological support systems were simply absent.

In the transport milieu, there were new vehicles entering the system that already produced less than 110 g/km of CO2 as compared with the current fleet which produced between 160 g/km and 280 g/km. Further, there were vehicles that would enter the system soon that could feasibly produce between 30 g/km and 80 g/km of CO2.

The technology also existed to reduce the energy required for lighting by as much as tenfold with only a 3% reduction in brightness, while the proper insulation of buildings had been proven to cut heating demand by up to 35%.

But Bucaille stressed that, given the continued world population growth, energy savings alone could not ensure energy security and the world would, therefore, probably have to double its energy production by 2050 to meet demand without precipitating a commensurate rise (in fact, a decrease would be demand) in CO2 emissions.

That raised serious questions about the future power mix and the cost of such production, which was arguably also why so many countries were making fresh enquiries about the deployment of nuclear.

Bucaille said that, apart from the 440 existing plants in 31 countries, a further 30 were under construction in 11 countries, with a further 41 reactors firmly planned.

Another 113 reactors were under consideration, with countries such as China and India leading the way. In fact, Areva estimated that by 2035, some 35% of the world’s nuclear power would be centred in these two highly populated Asian countries, with India alone planning to build 600 reactors by that time.

For South Africa, which was still considering how best to fund a new nuclear programme, Bucaille felt a major advantage lay in the fact that the country already had a nuclear safety framework and an existing institutional capacity.

He noted that Areva, which was keen to commercialise its technology internationally, had been forced to withdraw from certain other markets, owing to a lack of similar safeguards.

“It is a big asset that South Africa already has a nuclear safety authority, with strong connections to the US and French safety authorities.

“For those that still need to build their safety authorities, it will be a big challenge . . . and there cannot be any development of nuclear in a country where the safety authority is not competent or serious,” Bucaille said.

He noted, too, that countries should not disregard the costs associated with gaining international certification for a nuclear plant, which he said from recent experience could add up to €1-billion to the cost of developing a new nuclear facility.

Nevertheless, he still felt that there was sufficient demand to ensure that there would be between 600 and 800 reactors in operation internationally by 2030.