It looks like an ordinary building site, but for the two massive, rounded concrete shells looming above the ocean, like dusty mushrooms. Here on the Normandy coast, France is building its newest nuclear reactor, the first in 10 years, costing $5.1 billion. But already, President Nicolas Sarkozy has announced that France will build another like it.
Flamanville is a vivid example of the French choice for nuclear power, made in the late 1950s by Charles de Gaulle, intensified during the oil shocks of the 1970s and maintained despite the nightmarish nuclear accidents of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
Nuclear power provides 77 percent of France’s electricity, according to the government, and relatively few public doubts are expressed in a country with little coal, oil or natural gas.
With the wildly fluctuating cost of oil, anxiety over global warming from burning fossil fuels and new concerns about the impact of biofuels on the price of food for the poor, nuclear energy is getting a second look in countries like the United States and Britain.France is way ahead. Électricité de France, or EDF, is in talks to buy British Energy, for about $24 billion, to renovate Britain’s nuclear plants and build new ones. The French have already contracted to build a third-generation European Pressurized Reactor of the Flamanville type — the world’s safest and most powerful — in Abu Dhabi and China.
There is pride in French exceptionalism and in the technical skill that has produced an industry with no major accidents. In a recent op-ed article in Le Figaro, for example, Yves Thréard boasted: “France hasn’t any oil, but she knew how to exploit a rich idea. In the whirlwind of globalization, civil nuclear power became a weapon, commercial and political, that allowed the country to remain at the avant-garde in the concert of nations.”
I happen to agree. As thoroughly as I embrace renewable energy sources like wind and photo-voltaics, nuclear power generation makes absolute sense.
Absent the corruption and profiteering which dominated the first generation here in the United States.
But just try to pass by litigating “greens” who have killed even cleaner power sources (wind system proposed on LI, NY killed exactly that way). They simply don’t want power generation and I guess if they pulled us back to the cave days, they’ll be opposed to the use of fire… And, yes, bring politics into it: Obama have shown that he is part of that same debilitating group.
mark my words. Every bit of oil in the ground, every lump of coal, and every ounce of radioactive material is going to be consumed in the next couple of hundred years. Right now we are starting to burn up our food for energy.
Unless we figure out a way to make electricity our of thin air, (hot fusion) then the world is heading for a major crash that will make the Social Security meltdown in 30 years look like small potatoes.
It is coming. We cannot maintain the current growth track the planet is on while relying on finite resources.
What is going to happen in 20 years when all of the windmills we are putting up start to wear out.
Don
What was nightmarish about Three Mile Island?
I thought the safety systems generally worked as they were meant to.
OK Chernobyl was sheer stupidity as they went so far as to completely shut off all the safety systems.
Modern Generation 2 and 3 reactors are far safer than those old Gen 1 reactors and Gen 3 will produce almost no radioactive waste.
Personaly I have no problem with nuclear power.
#2 – Don
>>mark my words. Every bit of oil in the ground,
>>every lump of coal, and every ounce of
>>radioactive material is going to be consumed in
>>the next couple of hundred years.
There’s enough uranium-238 around to power fast breeder reactors for the next five billion years (see item 6 in http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html ).
I figure in 5,000,000,000 years, we can figure out some other technology to power our HDTVs and SUVs.
For now, though, the geniuses in Washington have nothing better tha offshore drilling and ANWR drilling to offer up. Screw that windmill shit! Walter Cronkite doesn’t want it in his front yard, and neither do they.
Windmills wear out in 20 years? You poor ignorant git. Even the original old Aermotors got better life than that – with cowboy-style maintenance.
When you learn something about technology, mail in a penny postcard.
What was nightmarish about Three-mile-island?
Nearly all the safety systems worked as they should, the leak was minute and the greatest harm was caused by the media panic! In addition there has not been any increase in cancers in the area as was originally claimed would happen.
OK Chernobyl was sheer stupidity as they shut off all the safety systems.
Compared to Generation 1, Generation 2 & 3 reactors are far safer and Gen 3 ones will produce almost no radioactive waste.
I am quite happy to have nuclear power.
#2 Don, said, “and every ounce of radioactive material is going to be consumed in the next couple of hundred years.”
Get a grip, and an education.
#5 – You are correct. The only nightmarish thing about Three Mile Island was the media disinformation campaign.
“nuclear power generation makes absolute sense”
Absolute huh? You know what kind of “person” has no doubts don’t you?
What do they do with their waste?
#3 is correct… Breeder reactors will eventually save us…
Educate yourself…
#3: Mr Mustard: your TinyURL link is broken, try again.
#9 – Pink
Arrghh. Here’s the actual link. Sorry Eds.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html
[Fixed your original post too. – ed.]
#8 They process it into glass rods that contain the waste and bury it.
#2 Gosh I hope you were kidding about “..Windmills dying out in 20yrs”. That is pretty bad statement to end with.
Anyway, like my visionary Republican Congressman who is running for reelection has proclaimed “I support energy independence for US”.
I also think nuclear is a great enabler.
#10 And doesn’t include dismantling all the nuke warheads for power plant fuel…
I agree. I would like to see the federal government commission the design of a mid-size pebble bed reactor that can be mass produced and installed nation wide. By using the same simple and safe design, training, parts, and procedures can be standardized. That will help with safety since there won’t have to be unique properties for each plant.
I think this can be done and implemented faster and cheaper than all the offshore and Arctic drilling can be brought online. And going nuclear for electricity can allow us to make the next generation of cars, trains, and trucks to be 100% electric.
I usually don’t agree with anything Europe does, Especially France, but in this case they have it right. Nuclear might not be the best option, but its certainly better then coal or middle east oil. If its done right, nuclear power is very safe. One has to only look to the US Navy. They run a hundred or so such reactor on their carriers and subs and have had an excellent safety record.
South Africa is in the midst of building their second nuke plant. Trouble is, it won’t be ready until the middle of 2010. They really need the power now.
#14 “I agree. I would like to see the federal government …”
Don’t hold your breath. Big oil has purchased the gov’t and long ago, infiltrated the eco movement…
I would have no problem with nuclear power (as part of a mix of alternatives to fossil fuels), so long as there is an adequate surcharge on the bill to cover the perpetual storage of the waste. The Yucca Mountain project is vastly over budget and behind schedule.
#18 “The Yucca Mountain project is vastly over budget and behind schedule.”
Just charge the idiots who file endless, frivolous lawsuits. That’ll handle the charges…
Its horrible to say but what we need is a “paradigm shift.” The model of large capital intensive centrally controlled targets of terrorism should be avoided even if all the technological problems are dealt with.
Move on, go distributed, cheap, locally controlled, not a target and address 5-6 issues at once rather than focus on the cause du jour.
@dusan
They already oppose fires. They already have these laws. You can have beach fires in California even for a 4th of July celebration.
While I do believe nuclear power is the way to go for US energy needs, it still won’t get us out of our oil problems here.
Electric cars are just not their yet. Until one comes around that can go 300 miles on a charge, charge up in less than 15 minutes, and cost less than 30 grand, the electric car will be regulated to people who commute exclusively, and are willing to go through the extra hassle and cost of owning one. Maybe battery technology will come around and change this, but that tech has been going very slow, so I don’t hold out much hope that it will be viable option in my lifetime.
Hydrogen cars have some promise, but they have some major issues of their own to overcome.
Bio fuels, just seem like a bad idea, as its usually not a good idea to burn your food.
So for the foreseeable future we are stuck with oil, and as the rest of the world gears up, we are going to need more of it, which is going to cause prices to continue to go up.
#22 I just don’t get the ‘we need cars that go 300 miles on a charge and 15 min charge up”? Why?
Many Americans can do just fine with 100, 80 even 50 miles a day, charge over night. I’m sure a car like that for under $10K would be pretty darn good. Certainly until those 90’s jet packs that were promised finally come out.
Speaking on paradigm shifts needed, this is a big one.
#22 – Bob
What do you mean, hydrogen cars have issues of their own to overcome? Will Ferrell, Jay Leno, Jeremy Piven, Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, and Cameron Diaz already have access to them.
http://tinyurl.com/5aoq7e
Ok, so the BMW hydrogen cars cost a couple of million bucks. MISSION ACCOMMPLISHED! So why screw around with that nasty nuclear power, just to provide energy to the other 2,999,993 of us?
Whether we like them or not, nuclear is the only reliable source of energy. I expect the improvements in heat efficiency of modern reactors over the next 20 years to radically alter their output, making new plants un-necessary. Fast breeders combined with sterling engines, will make reactors autonomous. They will be burning the high level nuclear waste stockpiles to make electricity.
1-
Idiotic would be the way I’d describe your post.
‘green’ folk (as you call them) are all in favor of nuclear energy, as it’s infinitely cleaner than oil and gets us off the foreign pipeline.
Nuclear ftw.
But we won’t see it here until every drop of oil has been consumed.
#20. No, it is that the technical issues for storing highly radioactive waste for literally THOUSANDS of years turn out to be much more expensive and harder to deal with than initially planned for.
Government projects (wars, etc) are budgeted as ‘best case scenarios,’ secure in the knowledge that once started, they are almost impossible to kill off simply because they are costing a shit-ton more than anticipated.
On the electricity bill of every nuclear power customer, there should be a Yucca Mountain Tax – this is how much your energy REALLY costs.
Anything that produces waste that can’t be got rid of or recycled can hardly be described as “clean”. There is currently around 50,000 tonnes of nuclear waste being held in temporary facilities around the world. Given the fact that it won’t decay to “safe” levels for tens of thousands of years, that could add substantially to the cost of electricity if this storage were taken into account. Even if it were stored at the local self storage place, a few bucks a week over ten thousand years is quite a bill. I guess you guys are OK with your children and grandchildren picking up the tab.
#28 & 29 – I see that you have heard the FUD put out by the oil industry. Once you reprocess it you reuse it. I guess you have researched the subject for about 30 seconds total. LOL