How France Sees Its Nuclear-Powered Future

Reader Comments
Back to article

THISS IS SO AWSOME I LOVE HOW THERE TRYWN TO FIXED THE WORLD

NATILE of IA 3:29PM October 30, 2009

By: Jordan C. Fan, Prophet of Environment.
In order for Frnace to be successful in defeating the Iranian nuclear development which will soon become a competitor for France. Sarkozy needs to persecute Muslims living in France especially on Muslim women wearing burkha. As you all know, France is one of the most important world center for the fashion industry. It is the hometown for many fashion designer and manufacturers of highly expensive clothings. Fashion shows are almost an everyday event.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy move to back the demands to ban the wearing of the burkha in France is uite obviously an open and shut case of bribery by the fashion industry to Sarkozy. Imagine how much those clothing factories in France can gain if Muslims were to get rid of their clothes and accessaries to buy new ones. The greed of the French people have insulted Islam as a religion and Muslims must now retaliate against such French atrocity.
Sarkozy must be arrested and brought to justice by French courts. It was a clear case of bribery by the fashion industry in France.

Jordan C. Fan, Prophet of Environment. 8:59AM July 02, 2009

Anyone here talking about how france will run out of uranium or have trouble getting nuclear fuel really doesn't know much about nuclear energy.
Uranium prices have very little impact on the price of nuclear energy, in fact if Uranium prices shot up 10 times over, the cost of producing nuclear energy in non-breeder reactors would only increase ~2-4%, in breeder reactors (like in france) the increase would be negliable.
On top of the trivial effect the supply of Uranium has on nuclear energy...Uranium is suprizingly common, it's about 40 times more common then silver and 55 times more common then gold. Twice as common as mercury or tin and very large deposits are constantly being discovered.

Nyvin of MI 1:42AM June 30, 2009

You've forgotten the environmental costs of getting nuclear fuel---they're pretty high. You're also attempting to equate that the waste is contained into being clean. It just isn't so. Finally, even without the costs of de-commissioning a plant---which no one has accurately calculated because it has never been done---nuclear is by far the most expensive method of generating electricity.

William Wilgus of FL 10:53PM April 18, 2009

It's easy to pass off the French nuclear system as a "success" by stating there is 80% reliance on nuclear for electricity without describing either the financial or environmental costs of such heavy dependence. It's equally easy to say that France "recycles" its radioactive waste - leaving a pleasant impression - without describing what "reprocessing," the real name of the process, means. In France, it means pumping 100 million gallons of liquid radioactive waste into the sea every year - wastes that have been detected as far as the Arctic Circle. It means releasing radioactive gases like krypton-85 into the air - found all over the globe. It means two medical studies finding leukemia clusters along the coast near the La Hague reprocessing plant. It means an 80-ton surplus pile of plutonium with nowhere to go sitting in thousands of containers on site. It means large amounts of uranium too contaminated to "recycle."
The French "success" is compounded by the presence of 210 abandoned uranium mines around the country (yes France must import all its uranium) which have been found to be highly radioactive still, with uranium tailings used in public parking lots, buildings and school playgrounds.
Annual polls show each year more French want renewables than nuclear power. There is a network of more than 852 anti-nuclear groups in France. And yes. it's absolutely true that the French nuclear system is undemocratic and highly secret.
True of most U.S. reporting on this issue, the nuclear party line was swallowed, hook line and sinker by this reporter without any apparent effort at verification.

Linda Gunter of MD 1:30PM March 30, 2009

Just reading the beginning of this article there are some glaring errors. Several countries have a higher percentage of electricity generated by nuclear power than Japan (which is not then 'second')---for example Belgium, Sweden, both around 50% as I recall.
Penly is the the third EPR proposed. The first two, in Olkiliuto in Finland and Flamanville in France are already under construction.
Doesn't seem like the author bothered to do much research.

SteveK9 of NH 2:04PM March 23, 2009

The sustainability of nuclear power depends upon our generation IV fast reactor strategy and aquaculture of uranium in seawater using a fabric adsorbent submerged system. Fast reactors, named after their higher neutron spectrum, convert the 99.3% of uranium atoms that will not normally split into plutonium atoms that will, using proliferation resistant pyroprocessing fuel cycles. Thus, 100 times the energy per ton of uranium in, and the ability to exploit expensive low-grade ores, found in granite (100,000 year supply) or seawater (five billion year supply).

zack of CA 4:02AM March 13, 2009

I had the transmission replaced in my car recently, considerably earlier than expected. Sometimes you simply can't predict lifespan accurately. A nuclear plant is simply a big machine and as any machine with an expected long service life (40+ years), you have to anticipate some component replacements. Too bad the 40 year design life of steam generators hasn't come to fruition. It is far less expensive to replace large components than to build new facilities. But I live 25 miles from San Onofre and I can assure you that neither unit has replaced S/G's yet. Neither of those documents you referenced states so. Local newspapers report one steam generator replacement outage scheduled for this fall, another scheduled for 2010.
I've read that a reliable grid requires no more than about 20% "interruptable" generation (not the correct terminology but you get the picture). Wind and solar fall into that category because they cannot be relied upon to keep the grid voltage up at all times. If you want reliable baseload electricity, you have to choose amongst fossil, hydro, and nuclear. All have downsides but hydro and nuclear are the only emission-free sources. All the negatives associated with nuclear are manageable and studies in the US show that fuel consumption is not limiting once fast reactors and Gen IV plants are ready.

eric goldin of CA 2:17PM March 12, 2009

Correction
San Onofre 2 and 3 are PWRs. The steam generators on Unit 2 are exchanged and it is back on line. The exchange of the SGs on Unit 3 are expected in the fall.
See
http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKN1844555020090219?sp=true
See also
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1337_web.pdf
In appendices II and III is a list of 83 SG replacements and 93 reactor vessel head replacements up to 2005 in PWR and BWR reactors. This was due to leaks by stress corrosion cracking in Inconel 600 alloy steel and associated weld metal. It will take another 20 years or so to discover whether the replacement Inconel 690 performs adequately.
The Davis Besse NPP suffered a large hole in the outer reactor head ferritic shell which was described as a "near miss" as only the thin inner stainless steel liner saved it from disaster.
The replacement by now of around 200 major reactor components has resulted in major expenditure around the world, guesstimated at around 50% of the original capital. Operators are unlikely to consolidate the exact figure, but with the loss of revenue it will be considerable.

John Busby 1:38PM March 12, 2009

My motto is there is no free lunch. Every source of electricity generation has pros and cons, including nuclear. But let's at least get our facts straight. Mr. Busby said that: "In San Onofre California, for instance, a hole had to be cut in the BWR prestressed concrete containment to replace all four steam generators, each weighing 640 tons. This added a further 50% to the capital cost and delays probably added another 50% at the start!"
In fact, San Onofre is a two unit PWR (steam generators, right?) and has not started any SG replacement yet. So there has been no capital cost increase and no delay since the project hasn't even started.
When one plays fast and loose with information, you lose credibility. The facts are that nuclear vies with hydro for the lowest total life cycle carbon footprint, is the least expensive baseload electricity source, and realistically is absolutely necessary (for at least some fraction of electricity generation) to wean ourselves from a clearly unsustainable reliance on fossil fuels.

Eric Goldin of CA 11:28AM March 12, 2009