PBS - Why the French Love Nuclear Energy

[BeatleBoot]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/...


Civaux in southwestern France is a stereotypical rural French village with a square, a church and a small school. On a typical day, Monsieur Rambault, the baker, is up before dawn turning out baguettes and croissants. Shortly after, teacher Rene Barc opens the small school. There is a blacksmith, a hairdresser, a post office, a general store and a couple of bars. But overlooking the picturesque hamlet are two giant cooling towers from a nuclear plant, still under construction, a half-mile away. When the Civaux nuclear power plant comes on line sometime in the next 12 months, France will have 56 working nuclear plants, generating 76% of her electricity.


In France, unlike in America, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular. Everybody I spoke to in Civaux loves the fact their region was chosen. The nuclear plant has brought jobs and prosperity to the area. Nobody I spoke to, nobody, expressed any fear. From the village school teacher, Rene Barc, to the patron of the Cafe de Sport bar, Valerie Turbeau, any traces of doubt they might have had have faded as they have come to know plant workers, visited the reactor site and thought about the benefits of being part of France's nuclear energy effort.


France's decision to launch a large nuclear program dates back to 1973 and the events in the Middle East that they refer to as the "oil shock." The quadrupling of the price of oil by OPEC nations was indeed a shock for France because at that time most of its electricity came from oil burning plants. France had and still has very few natural energy resources. It has no oil, no gas and her coal resources are very poor and virtually exhausted.


French policy makers saw only one way for France to achieve energy independence: nuclear energy, a source of energy so compact that a few pounds of fissionable uranium is all the fuel needed to run a big city for a year. Plans were drawn up to introduce the most comprehensive national nuclear energy program in history. Over the next 15 years France installed 56 nuclear reactors, satisfying its power needs and even exporting electricity to other European countries.

<more>

[JDPriestly]

1. Business likes nuclear energy because it gives them a product to sell.

With other forms of alternative energy especially solar power, the consumer can produce his or her own energy.

Nuclear energy makes consumers dependent on the nuclear energy provider for energy. Thus nuclear energy is for the people in the nuclear energy business more profitable.

The problem is that the public pays a huge price for nuclear energy. The cost of cleaning up nuclear accidents and making sure that the materials used in producing nuclear energy (even some of the water gets contaminated) are stored safely and do not get into the wrong hands.

I would prefer that our country spent more money trying to develop better solar energy. It is safer and will, in the long run be cheaper for the public, for consumers. Besides, solar energy will promote economic independence for the little people like me.

Please stop the nuclear energy propaganda.

Beatleboot, please stop.

[Massacure]

3. Just because someone post articles you disagree with makes it propaganda?

[JDPriestly]

8. There is an enormous amount of money behind nuclear energy.

It is a horrible mistake. Ask the people of Nevada whether they want the nuclear waste stored in their state.

Do you know any state that wants it?

Nuclear energy is not the way to go. I can't understand why anyone who was not paid to propagandize for nuclear energy would be interested in posting items that promote it. That's why I suspect the motives of those who advocate for nuclear energy.

[Massacure]

11. Not understanding why people want nuclear energy doesn't mean they don't exist

Even when people oppose something, that doesn't mean their opinions are based on sound logic. There exist people who formulate opinions without knowing a complete set of facts.

[Heywood J]

19. You know, there are people out there who do see a future in nuclear power

Engineering science has come a long way since the current commercial power stations were built. Research into traveling wave reactors shows that the waste problem may not be around as long as we think, so why not work in the direction of getting rid of it? Even if you shut down every nuclear plant in the world right this second, what would be solved by not pursuing something that could eat the waste stockpiles?

[JDPriestly]

28. Why not? Why do I oppose nuclear energy?

Because I think it is a way to hook consumers on an expensive method of producing energy, and because I think we have better energy sources and should use them first.

[Toots]

45. Are you against our nuclear run navy ships?

Would you rather they be belching out diesel exhaust, and dependent upon obtaining fuel which mostly comes from places we may someday be at war with?

[JDPriestly]

50. Nuclear energy should be used as little as possible.

I don't know about navy ships, but, on the surface of our continent we should use alternative energy other than nuclear. I wish we did not have to use any nuclear.

[Mojorabbit]

26. I agree

Whenever I read the discovery of a lost ancient city I think about how future generations will fare if they come across an old contaminated site while discovering/excavating remnants of our cities.

[JDPriestly]

27. My thought precisely. Mojorabbit. I thought I was the only one who

thinks that way. I worry about what might happen a hundred years from now. I think about how quickly the Roman Empire fell apart -- and I wonder what we face.

[Greyhound]

32. No, there are a few of us left. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

12. Yes, propaganda.

You can add some balance to your knowledge about France's so-called energy independence and other PR truthiness contained therein by reading this article from The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/the-reality-of-frances-aggressive-nuclear-power-push

[paulsby]

7. provide evidence

about the "huge price" the french public pays.

i've never heard about it

[CTyankee]

47. The French people have a luxury we don't have: economic socialism

of the sort that we cannot experience. No matter what, they have a system whereby you have much more cradle to grave social security than we have and than we'll ever have if we try to replicate the French nuclear power program. It is no wonder to me that the French embrace this policy. When your health care is assured, your job has some security (and when it doesn't there are riots in the streets, unheard of here), if your kid is smart he/she goes to the university tuition free, a comfortable retired is what you can look forward to, well, that makes taking this risk less risky. Excellent food and wine can also round out a LOT of rough edges, IMO from my travels in Europe.

It is apples and oranges to blandly assert that France's energy policy can be cut and pasted here, voila!

[paulsby]

49. nobody claimed it could be "cut and pasted"

what i said was to provide evidence for the claim made.

i note none was forthcoming.

france and the US are both countries with vibrant technological sector and there is no reason why (or none i have ever seen presented) why since it works in france, it wouldn't work here.

also, the double standard is AMAZING. when stuff like universal healthcare etc. is pointed, then the french are a model and so much better than us. and in that respect i agree (i have issues with many things about france, but not their healthcare)...

but when it comes to those evil nukes, all of a sudden france is some sort of cosmic anamoly and it wouldn't work here.

that's simply illogical. it's based on the belief that nukes are bad (mmkaay). therefore the ideologue ignores evidence to the contrary.

people are still stuck in the "no nukes" thang, and frankly, it was a mistake back then. MANY (honest) environmentalists now admit it. if we had gone strong on nukes back in the day, we would not have nearly the dependence on foreign oil, and we would have had much less environmental degradation. not to mention all those people killed in coal and oil production over the years might have had the chance to live

[CTyankee]

56. It's pretty broad brush to say that some people who like France's socialist policies

are simply hypocritical in opposing nuclear energy. At least, I have heard these folks go on to say WHY they oppose nuke energy and they cite health concerns, terrorism concerns, and nuclear waste concerns. They are wise concerns, not hypocritical posturing and surely you have heard reasoned, logical opposition laid out in those terms. Perhaps you believe that these worries are easily overcome, if so, please state. However, it seems to me that when we don't really double down and try everything green before we go nuke we are missing great opportunity. The risks to life, health and security listed above are not present with green energy. It just makes sense to me to try those first.

Of course, nuke energy make some people rich and if that is part of your thesis, then please state it plainly. Let's talk about making money off of energy sources...it hasn't worked too well for us in so many respects, I for one need a drill down (no pun intended) on that argument...

[paulsby]

69. but they never back up those "concerns" with EVIDENCE

i could sit here and do the same thing about why "universal healthcare wouldn't work here" but it would be crap and we both know it

also, whether or not nukes would work is a matter primarily of technology, etc. in that respect, we are AT LEAST as advanced as france.

healthcare is a much more complex issue involving different (to some extent) economic systems, constitutional issues, etc.

fwiw, i support BOTH.

it is simply imo disingenuous of MANY when they reflexively oppose nukes here when the evidence is CLEAR that it works there and would work here.

it also reminds me of the anti-gays in the military people. gays in the military work just fine in a metric assload of countries, and there is no legitimate reason it wouldn't work here (hint: it would).

i think many on the left have the same frankly religious anti-nuke reflexive emotional response that some on the right have towards (for example) gays in the military. the EVIDENCE in both scenarios supports only one side, really.

the card that many anti-nukers like to trot out is chernobyl, which is ridiculous because (as several more informed folks than i have pointed out), the soviets used a distinctly different kind of reactor that was much less safe, not to mention that we are talking a (former) totalitarian socialist country with next to zero concerns about the environment, worker safety (proles are expendable cogs), and a crumbling crappy infrastructure.

i am very heartened that so many staunch opponents of nukes from the 70's etc. have honestly looked at the evidence and the experience of countries like france and concluded that they were wrong . now, maybe some people simply can't do it. god knows hillary, for example, still won't admit she made a mistake vis a vis iraq.

but it's quite simple. nukes work. the kind of nukes that france uses have a GREAT safety record.

oh, and also if we had gone heavily nuke, there's a good chance we wouldn't have to be fighting wars for oil.

hth

[CTyankee]

70. I think the updated debate is a good thing and I am certainly not now where I was

in the 70s. I know about the differences between Chernobyl and what France has, for instance. So I welcome the arguments pro and hope to hear all of the issues debated, including fears about nuclear waste, and the air cleared. I think it is good to put all the energy options in perspective as to how much energy we need vs. how much we will get with each option. It is a reasonable path to go down, so that we are all "on the same page."

[sendero]

10. As a huge energy-efficiency and energy policy..

... fanatic, I have to disagree with you vociferously.

Solar power? Yeah, it is nice, if you can get by on a few kilowatt hours a day. 99.9% of American homes cannot so guess what, it is pretty much useless except for emergency backup type situations.

Other forms of home-owned energy, pretty much the same thing. You can put up a windmill and it will power about 3% of your house.

The fact is, we got sidetracked over the waste issue, and also because of 3 mile island. I'm totally for nuclear reactors, while having their issues are not nearly as bad as the alternatives, burning tons of coal and natural gas with huge bad environmental effects and depletion risks.

At some point in our future, nuclear energy will play a big part because we don't really have any better choices unless something totally new pops up.

[Gravel Democrat]

25. Large scale solar works. Here's proof:

Solar One and Solar Two

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_...

Solar One operated successfully from 1982 to 1988, proving that power towers work efficiently to produce utility-scale power from sunlight. The Solar One plant used water/steam as the heat-transfer fluid in the receiver; this presented several problems in terms of storage and continuous turbine operation. To address these problems, Solar One was upgraded to Solar Two, which operated from 1996 to 1999. Both systems had the capacity to produce 10 MW of power.<5>



The unique feature of Solar Two was its use of molten salt to capture and store the sun's heat. The very hot salt was stored and used when needed to produce steam to drive a turbine/generator that produces electricity. The system operated smoothly through intermittent clouds and continued generating electricity long into the night.<7>

Nellis Solar Power Plant

In December 2007, the U.S. Air Force announced the completion of a solar photovoltaic (PV) system at Nellis Air Force Base in Clark County, NV. Occupying 140 acres (57 ha) of land leased from the Air Force at the western edge of the base, this ground-mounted photovoltaic system employs an advanced sun tracking system, designed and deployed by PowerLight subsidiary of SunPower. Tilted toward the south, each set of solar panels rotates around a central bar to track the sun from east to west.<10> The 14-megawatt (MW) system will generate more than 30 million kilowatt-hours of electricity each year and supply approximately 25 percent of the total power used at the base. The Nellis Solar Power Plant is one of the largest solar photovoltaic systems in North America.<11><12>



Mojave Solar Park

Solel has signed a contract with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) to build the world's largest solar plant in the Mojave Desert. When fully operational in 2011, the Mojave Solar Park will deliver 553 megawatts of solar power, the equivalent of powering 400,000 homes, to PG&E’s customers in northern and central California. The plant will cover up to 6,000 acres (24 km2) of land.<3><14>
*******************

All nuclear energy does really is heat water to make steam to spin turbines.
It's highly centralized, highly technical and one wrong move, stuck valve
or Murphy and his silly law could make a large area uninhabitable for centuries.
A plant approved and financed today won't be operable for years.

[PhD]

31. Solar requires A LOT of water

which we don't have to give here in the Mojave Desert.

[Gravel Democrat]

37. wiki link fixed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert

Solar kicks ass

[sendero]

39. It's all about the cost per kilowatt..

... and I'm betting those plants don't come out very good on a cost basis.

You left off the "solar boiler" plants. Again, how much per kWH delivered?

[Codeine]

52. I am amused that one of the largest PV arrays in North America

can only supply one-quarter of the power needs of one Air Force base. :rofl: And THAT'S supposed to be our future? Better turn off the lights.

[Statistical]

63. Thats about 1/370th of the output of a single nuclear reactor.

One of the largest PV arrays in the United States produces about 1/370th of the power of a single GenIII+ reactor.

Georgia is build 2 AP1000s to produce the same amount of power by solar would take over 700 of these massive solar parks. Hundreds of square miles, and decades to build, and would cost $72 billion (the Nellis array costs $100m each) vs $4B for 2 compact, highly efficient, contained reactors.

[Statistical]

61. A solar plant with the same output toay won't be operational for years either.

The using a "small" solar plants as an example that solar is cheaper and faster to build is so utterly fake on the surface.

It takes about 3 years to build a super tanker and a couple days to build a semi-truck so I guess semi-truck is cheaper to transport goods. Oh wait the super tanker which takes 10x as long to build can hold 100000000x as much stuff. Wait I "guess" that changes the metrics a little.

It takes 10 Mojave Solar Parks (90 square miles) or a staggering 370 Nellis Solar Power Plants to equal the output of just a single AP1000 reactor (9.3 BILLION kWh per year).

There are 18 reactors planned for construction in the United States.

To generate an equivalent amount of power would require 180 Mojave Solar Parks (each costing $2 billion and taking 3 years to build) or almost 7000 plants the size of Nellis Solar Power Plant.

[troubledamerican]

13. Totally agree. Where does France put their nuclear waste?

There is no safe nuclear waste storage.

We are going to learn the hard way.

[rhett o rick]

17. That was going to be my question. In the US, while we argue over where a safe permanent sight

we are just piling it up in lots. Totally vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

[troubledamerican]

21. Totally vulnerable to a False Flag.

[rhett o rick]

41. Sorry I dont understand what you mean. nt

[jtuck004]

33. Apparently it is processed in pools for a period of time, then

shipped to La Hague, France (Normandy) on the tip of a peninsula where it is reprocessed and solidified, then stored for several decades while waiting to be shipped to it's final destination.

The final destination has not been determined. "The French are also searching for a granite site to research."

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtml

[rhett o rick]

42. Without having a plan for "final sight", they dont know how much their total costs are.

The "final sight" costs will be very expensive.

[Greyhound]

34. The "long-term" plan is to bury it somewhere.

They are leading the world in researching and utilizing methods of re-cycling nuclear fuel to minimize the volume of waste, but for over 40 years their solution has been to look for a solution while moving it around from storage facility to storage facility.

This is the bottom line to nuclear fission reactors, the cost of that "clean, cheap energy" is amortized over centuries and the burden is dumped on future generations in poor nations. If we put the money into developing alternative energy sources over the last 40 years that has gone down the nuclear rat-hole, we'd be getting far more of our energy from them today than we are from nuclear.

In the end it is as it always has been, we are given what will enrich people that matter, no matter how bad or how expensive it is. Low-cost distributed generation systems don't make many people super-rich and make price-gouging impossible, so it ain't happening here.

[rhett o rick]

43. Yes and it isnt just the spent fuel they have to deal with. The plants will eventually get too old

to use and the whole plant will need special, very costly destruction processes and waste storage.

[Kolesar]

60. Radioactive steel pressure vessel--free for anyone who will pick it up

put it on craig's list

[olegramps]

58. With 56 plants working without any incident it would seem to this old goat:

That maybe we should consider nuclear as a viable option along with other sources of energy. I would rather see a detailed study of the relative advantages of nuclear vs other means. It seems to me that Americans are somewhat paranoid in regard to nuclear energy. Take for example the radiation of poultry and meat products that could eliminate certain bacteria. This method is being employed throughout Europe with great success, but blocked by uninformed American citizens unwarranted fears.

[tabasco]

59. Does the coal business like nuclear?

Thank God there's all that clean coal that doesn't need cleaned up. :sarcasm:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

2. because they don't cower in paranoid fear?

[rhett o rick]

51. Nuclear power has huge concerns. Calling it paranoid fear is not helpful. nt

[Generator]

4. My husband mentioned France when I said how much I hated

nuclear energy and how back wards it seemed that Obama was promoting it. Apparently he's right, they love it. I, however, have a different experience with many problems here in Oregon/Wa from Trojan and Hanford. I think it sucks and it's horrible. He however lived in California and never experienced the fight we had to get rid of rotten nuclear in the northwest. Until there is a problem, it's wonderful. But one problem is a nightmare for generations. That is a no brainer to me. No nukes!

[JDPriestly]

9. We lived in Europe and had not been back in the U.S. that long

before Chernobyl hit. Wow! Chernobyl really brought the reality of the risk of nuclear energy to my life. I will never forget it.

[Poiuyt]

14. I'm guessing that the U.S. has tighter regulations than Ukraine

I'm not defending nuclear plants, I don't know enough about them. But the old Soviet states weren't exactly safety or environmentally conscious.

[JDPriestly]

30. Has the Ukraine had a Katrina yet?

We couldn't even maintain a decent levee in New Orleans much less nuclear reactors and waste sites. It isn't that we lack the technology. It is that we lack the political will to stick to things in the long term. We have a short attention span. Once the reactors are no longer functioning at maximum profitability, their corporate owners will abandon them in the quickest, cheapest manner.

We cannot afford nuclear energy. And we are not careful enough to use it properly. We don't have a long enough attention span to handle nuclear energy.

[Merchant Marine]

16. You should read about events leading up to the Chernobyl disaster, very interesting.

Chernobyl was really the perfect storm- bad design, bad training, obsolete equipment, and undergoing the third attempt at an experimental shutdown technique that had failed twice before. Wikipedia has a good summary of the event.

It's telling that the three other reactors at the Chernobyl facility continued operating after the disaster. Reactor 2 had a fire in the turbine building in 1991 and was decommissioned, Reactor 1 was shut down in '96 as part of the plant's planned closure, and Reactor 3 was shut down when the plant closed for good in 2000.

[Statistical]

23. Not only that the design (even in perfect condition) is unstable.

US reactors are water moderated. Get a steam bubble and the lower density reduces thermal moderation. Reactor slows down = less heat = less steam.

Russian reactors are graphite moderated. Get a steam bubble and lower water density means more moderating effect from the graphite. Reactor speeds up = more heat = more steam = more moderating effect = more heat = more steam ....... explosion.

Combine that with fact that US reactors has containment building strong enough to withstand the steam explosion (contain radiation inside containment). The Russians looked at the cost and skipped a containment building.

Graphite Moderated + boiling water reactor + lack of containment structure + problems you described makes Chernobyl a very different situation.

Of course some people like simple answers. All nukes = same. All nuclear reactors = Chernobyl.

[paulsby]

29. chernobyl brought hte reality of the incompetency of a socialist state

the USSR in general had an AWFUL worker safety record and not just in nukes, not to mention a horrible record for pollution

[kestrel91316]

5. If we weren't the world's largest Third World country, and if we could REALLY

count on oversight of the companies running the damned things, and if we had a PLAN for secure waste disposal, I would support nuclear to some extent. But we are, and we can't and we don't.

[uppityperson]

6. "Nobody I spoke to, nobody, expressed any fear." My French family fears it

fears what may happen, fears the problem of long term storage. They have few natural resources, as the article states, beyond wind, sun, ocean tides. That is the problem.

Nuke powered electricity is very expensive for the people, leading most to not have clothes dryers. And yes, there are many people who fear the issues.

[DefenseLawyer]

15. But why do they love Jerry Lewis? n/t

[tavalon]

18. I can see from that article why they would like it

The French are far more socialist and much less capitalistic than we are. To place something so volatile in the hands of greedy businessmen, instead of the government (which we distrust as much as we distrust lawyers and the overlap is not lost on me or others). One place where I part ways with many liberals is that, with plenty of safety built in, I don't actually have a problem with nuclear power. I would prefer wind and solar, but nuclear isn't off the table for me.

[bvar22]

20. Not the placid romance some would have you believe.

"Not for France the quiet calm – soon to be abolished here (Britain) – of a public inquiry. The early days of the French nuclear programme were accompanied by widespread and occasionally violent demonstrations – leading to the death of a protester on at least one occasion.

The tide of those demonstrations ebbed as the ten-year burst of nuclear construction ended in the mid-Eighties. Since then the relatively slow build rate of additional reactors has diminished the focus for public concern, but opposition to nuclear power in France remains strong.

This became clear during the extraordinary formal dialogue involving politicians, business, NGOs, trades unions and academics that took place during 2007. In his speech last October welcoming the outcome of this process, President Sarkozy promised that France was not going to replace its existing nuclear fleet in its entirety. In future no more than 60 per cent of France’s electricity will be produced from nuclear, well down on the current 85 per cent."

http://www.e3g.org/archive/archive-article/too-chic-to-meter-nuclear-power-in-france/

The protests and opposition to the Bush invasion of Iraq didn't appear in the Media.
That doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The French Nuclear Program is State Run with little or no avenue for public opposition or oversight.

Considering what is at stake in nuclear energy and the opposition it generates, it seems necessary that the population be involved in making the choices. Some countries have consulted their populations; Italy and Sweden did so through referendums. However, in France, it was the State which decided to resort to nuclear power. There was no democratic consultation.

Today, those who are against nuclear power still highlight the sector's lack of transparency. Some areas are even Top Secret."

http://www.goodplanet.info/goodplanet/index.php/eng/Energie-climat/Nucleaire/Energie-nucleaire/

On Edit:
A large number (majority?) of the French plants are reaching the end of their 30 year useful life.
Lets see how this "romance" deals with the horrendous costs associated with the decommissioning of these plants, and a landscape dotted with abandoned sites and waste pits.

[Blackhatjack]

22. Nuke Plants in the US Were NEVER Designed To Store Spent Fuel Rods Onsite...

But check the disclosures and you will find that is exactly what they are doing.

The original design of the nuclear plants that were approved included 'offsite' permanent disposal of spent nuclear waste, and the 'onsite' storage was designed to be temporary. With the inability to find 'safe' sites for permanent storage away from the plants themselves there has been an expansion of the 'onsite' storage maximums and that is where the majority of the spent nuclear fuel in the US is being stored today.

We have been assured by the nuke plant operators that this procedure is 'safe' and poses no risk to human population centers --but you have to wonder if original design plans would have been approved if the eventual permanent storage was to be 'onsite' and so close to so many people.

Nuclear power is prohibitively expensive to build, maintain and decommission. For that reason it is certainly not 'clean' and efficient energy as promoted by those who want to expand them.

When you perfect a method of safely transporting and disposing permanently the spent nuclear fuel, we can take another look at it.

[Codeine]

35. We've been storing it safely for decades.

Meanwhile the other sources of power we use have been storing all of their waste in our atmosphere, our rainwater, and our lungs.

[jtuck004]

36. A long-term environmental problem

Nuclear waste must be properly managed to minimize risk to the environment and to the health and safety of future generations.

Since the mid-1940s, spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste have accumulated throughout the country. Currently, they are stored in temporary facilities at some 121 sites in 39 states. These storage sites are located in a mixture of urban, suburban, and rural environments — most are located near large bodies of water.

In the United States today, over 161 million people reside within 75 miles of temporarily stored nuclear waste.

Current storage methods shield any harmful radiation and are presently safe. However, modern aboveground storage structures are designed for temporary storage only, and will not withstand rain, wind, and other environmental factors for the tens of thousands of years during which the waste will be hazardous.


From: http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0338.shtml

[quaker bill]

38. or roughly .001 percent of the safe storage time

required. The more interesting test will be what happens when the plants, due to accumulated fatigue from high speed neutron bombardment, can no longer be operated. How will the many millenia of safe storage still required be funded in the absence of revenue?

[rhett o rick]

53. You apparently have no idea how we are storing it or you wouldnt say that. It isnt

being stored "safely". We have been terribly lucky. Do you know how the very dangerous spent fuel is currently transported? You can probably rule out air. Rail? Trucks? Barges? For decades they have been trying to figure out a safe method of storage and they have fail so far.

[Statistical]

66. No we haven't. For decades politics has blocked any attempt at make a safe storage location.

BECAUSE that would eliminate the one major weapon the anti-nukkers can use to attack nuclear energy.

Finland completed their research a decade ago and construction is about half way done on their deep geological repository.
1700 feet deep into solid granite bedrock. It is being designed with planning into the future for the safe storage of about 100 years of spent fuel (accounting for future reactors and energy demand growth due to rising population).



There is a large vested interest in the nuclear waste issue never being solved because it can be used to attack, slow, delay nuclear power.

If we had a single operating, monitored, and secure location where all spent fuel was sealed and stored support for nuclear power (which is already a majority) would likely rival that of Japan, France, or Finland.

The anti-nukkers CAN NEVER let that happen so they will do everything possible to prevent such a facility from ever being built and then turn around and use that as an argument as to why we can't have nuclear power.

[rhett o rick]

71. i think you're giving the "anti-nukkers" way to much credit.

There are no "anti-nukkers" in Congress blocking efforts to build safe storage. And besides, anti-nukkers want safe storage, they aint crazy. You think they want a disaster so they can be right? They want to prevent disasters. I think you'll find it's the oil lobby that's holding back.

[upi402]

24. What? And they don't have "Nuke-Away"?

Mork and Mindy reference; when Mork was shocked at the stupidity of humans for usinf nuclear power without first developing a way to get rid of waste and leaks.

[dugaresa]

40. basically the French have no other options and this is the best way

for them to power their country.

for them nuclear power makes sense.

[TwilightGardener]

44. Wait...the town has a blacksmith? What century is this?

[leeroysphitz]

46. Nuclear is the answer. It's clean and renewable. We just need to take the profit motive out of the

equation for the sake of public health and safety.

[jtuck004]

48. Not clean and is dangerous. Doesn't mean it can't be used, but

we shouldn't trivialize the problems, or deny them. Both the United States and France, arguably two large and sophisticated users of nuclear power, still, after decades, have their waste in temporary storage, having never figured out how to make the storage permanent. Every respectable nuclear engineer who is not an industry shill says temporary storage is not safe. So whose homes are we going to put it near?

And while doing that we need to explain to the people why Hanford is still not cleaned up, even though it was mostly shut down in the 70's. And why, if it's so safe the government found it necessary to practice deception concerning the releases of radioactive waste into the Columbia River, exposed only in later years?

Why, if it's so safe, did the VP of operations at the VT Yankee nuclear plant lie under oath about buried pipes, a lie which has now been exposed in light of the contamination of test wells and ground water around the plant?

Why there were cover-ups of leaks at the Erwin plant in Tennessee?

The safety record for this industry appears to be quite spotty. They almost appear to be their own worst enemy.

I'm not anti-nuclear, but I am anti-stupid. And any industry which doesn't repect the population enough to be honest with them should never be trusted enough to operate something so powerful, IMO.

[Sugarcoated]

55. Exactly. Trust us! Fuck that.

My neighbor and good friend is a dentist who owns a practice near the Limerick Plant (an hour outside of Philadelphia). We were talking about the plant, how it would make me nervous to live near one, and he +told me people from the government, (I don't remember the name of the agency, I'll ask him to repeat the details next time I see him), asked him if he would provide them old fillings for testing. They did indeed have higher than normal levels of radiation. For what it's worth, he's a die-hard Republican.

My father was an engineer, he designed piping for a plant, probably Limerick, it was the 70's early 80's, and he said he'd never live near one. And then the Three Mile Island accident . . . cancer rates higher for people who live near them, especially higher in children. That's a deal breaker for me.

[rhett o rick]

54. You are joking right? Clean? Renewable?

First they are terribly expensive power plants to build. Special materials and special procedures. Then the fuel is dangerous and the plants need to be refueled frequently. There is currently no place to store the extremely dangerous spent fuel. Currently being stored in lots waiting final disposition or the containers corroding thru. Whatever the final deposition is will be outrageously expensive. And when the plant needs to be disposed of itself, again prohibitively expensive.

No financial organization will currently finance a nuclear power plant. Taxpayers have to assume the risk of default.

And "renewable" means you can grow more fuel. Comeon now.

[NNN0LHI]

65. There is a uranium farm right down the road from me growing the hell out of that stuff

No, really.

Don

[rhett o rick]

67. Is that on trees? nt

[spanone]

68. good we can put the spent rods in your backyard.

[bulloney]

57. The French do have that "glow" about them when they talk about their nuclear energy system.

[snooper2]

62. I would venture to guess the average French citizen

isn't nearly as ignorant on the subject as the average American...

[Statistical]

64. The irony is France exports about 1/3 of that power to its neighbors.

Those countries to to be "anti-nuclear" so instead of producing their own cheap, reliable power they pay interchange markup and send all the profits back to France and are still using nuclear energy.