nuclear-news

USA would be wise not to follow France’s nuclear path

French Nuclear Energy Policy – a cake the US may do well not to consume too much of Treehugger, by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 11.22.09 “………………. US politicians now cite the French energy policy example with excitement; claiming that nation’s high reliance on nuclear power is exemplary. (Inference that support for climate and energy legislation is more likely if nuclear power expansion incentives are included.) It doesn’t seem to matter to that France is roughly the size of Texas and that the existing US nuclear fleet already is far larger than what France has or will ever have. Nor, that the French government controls the nuclear power industry (socialized electricity).

Think it will matter to US Congressional proponents of government-funded nuclear power that France may be forced to import electrical power this winter due to operating problems and that the newest French power plant design – one that some argue should be used to update the nuclear fleet in both France and the USA – was recently challenged for being overly elaborate, and possibly unsafe?

I love it when Senators use the “Manhattan Project” simile. With Westinghouse, the big “American” nuclear supplier, long owned by Toshiba, and Areva, the French nuclear company, poised to go after an expanding US market, tax payer subsidies could flow to Japan & France, respectively. What’s the big deal?

As Lloyd points out in his post “Why Can’t We Be More Like France” it would be a very big deal indeed:

According to Joe Romm, to generate the same percentage as France, the US would have to build between 300 and 600 nuclear plants, depending on how you deal with existing plants needing retirement or growth in electricity demand.Oh, and Joe calculates that it will cost some four trillion dollars, and would need seven Yucca Mountain sized waste disposal sites. And that there are serious problems in the supply chain. Whether you love or hate nuclear power, there is no way that we can build enough of it fast enough to make much of a difference.

There is no French Energy Revolution. Move along Marie. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/french_nuclear-power-design-cake-let-them-eat.php

Generating Failure  How building nuclear power plants would set America back in the race agasinst global warming.  Environment Illinois 22 Nov 09  – “……Executive Summatry. Far from being a solution to global warming, nuclear power will actually set America back in the race to reduce pollution. Nuclear power is too slow and too expensive to make enough of a difference in the next two decades. Moreover, nuclear power is not necessary to provide clean, carbon-free electricity for the long haul.

The up-front capital investment required to build 100 new nuclear reactors could prevent twice as much pollution over the next 20 years if invested in energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy instead. Taking into account the ongoing costs of running the nuclear plants, a clean energy path would deliver as much as five times more progress for the money.

Early action matters in the fight against global warming….

• Reducing emissions from power plants holds large potential for early progress. The share of the U.S. emissions budget available to electric power plants could be as little as 34 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from 2010 cumulatively through 2050………………..
• No new reactors are now under construction in the United States. The nuclear industry will not complete the first new reactor until at least 2016, optimistically assuming construction will take four years after regulatory approval.
• However, it is likely that no new nuclear reactors could be online until 2018 or later. During the last wave of nuclear construction in the United States, the average reactor took nine years to build. New reactors are likely to experience similar delays. For example, a new reactor now under construction in Finland is at least three years behind schedule after a series of quality control failures.
• The American nuclear industry is not ready to move quickly. No American power company has ordered a new nuclear power plant since 1978, and all reactors ordered after the fall of 1973 ended up cancelled. As a result, domestic manufacturing capability for nuclear reactor parts has withered and trained personnel are scarce.
• Even if the nuclear industry managed to complete 100 new reactors in the United States by 2030 – the level of construction advocated by supporters of nuclear power – new nuclear power plants could still only reduce cumulative power plant emissions by 12 percent over the next two decades, leading to a higher and later peak in pollution. As a result, America would burn through its 40-year electric sector carbon budget in just 15 years……
• In contrast, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources can make an immediate contribution toward reducing global warming pollution.
• Clean energy can begin cutting emissions immediately. Energy efficiency programs are already reducing electricity consumption by 1-2 percent below forecast levels annually in leading states, and the U.S. wind industry is already building the equivalent of three nuclear reactors per year in wind farms, and growing rapidly.
• With the up-front capital investment required to build 100 new nuclear reactors, America could prevent twice as much pollution in the next 20 years by investing in clean energy instead. (Midpoint estimate, see Figure ES-1 and page 21 of the full report for more details.) ….

http://www.environmentillinois.org/uploads/c4/6b/c46b345b95dd70df2c8341d397e21866/Generating-Failure—Environment-Illinois—Web.pd

November 23, 2009 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, France | antinuclear, AREVA, EDF, France, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear secrecy, nuclear spin, nuclear technology, nuclear wastes, radiation, radioactive