Comments on: France: Vive Les Nukes

Steve Kroft On How France Is Becoming The Model For Nuclear Energy Generation

[lford4264]

Nuclear Energy is NOT cheap. Here in New Hampshire, the PSNH (Public Service of New Hampshire) electric company has some of the highest electric rates in the nation. Life Free or Die but you better be prepared to pay big electric bills.

[lford4264]

Nuclear Engergy Cheap? You gotta be kidding. Here in New Hampshire PSNH (Public Service of New Hampshire) is one of the most expensive electric sources in the north east if not america. Of course it's owned by a company in Connecticut so who knows.

LForD4264

[rheola-2009]

Good old didntinhale pops up everywhere, with his closed mind against those who may have an alternaive thought to his.

As with most of those who believe global warming is a reality, I consider that Nuclear is certainly one of the proposals to be placed on the table, unlike didntinhale who otherwise can see no merit in anything except his own belief's that appear to be of complete disbelief in the possibility of Global warming.

[adrossin]

"60 Minutes" did some programs in past years that were biased and misleading against nuclear power (the Clinton plant in Illinois, nuclear waste, for example) but this one was well researched and honestly presented. Some of the other commentors seem unwilling to accept anything that shows an industry in a positive light.

The US does not reprocess used nuclear fuel because activists were able to convince the Carter campaign that that commercial reprocessing would be uneconomical and would increase the threat of proliferation. The issue was not that simple. Pres. Carter would not look at the details, but bought the simplistic picture in the sentence above.

When the French heard Carter's decision, they tripled the planned size of their reprocessing plant. France now gets 3/4 of its electricity from nuclear power and supplies neighboring countries. In the US, no plant ordered after 1973 was ever completed.

[dmorg4]

I say bring on the nuke energy its clean its cheap and i dont have to thank an arab for it
its home grown right here in the good ol USA
i think its time we stop paying these arabs for
there oil so they can just buy bombs to try to kill us with them

[decristo50]

I am very much aware of the conflicts inherent in this issue. As someone whose values and politics were formed in the 60's & 70's I tend to be concerned about nuclear anything. However, this is a different time and the demands associated with global warming forces us to reevaluate old precepts. Even back then, I was never 'against' nuclear energy ... I just was unsure of the industry to make it safe. Even so, one could not totally dismiss the science for what it was, and what it might do as an energy source. That would be like assuming the science didn't exist. (If we did that, we might as well call ourselves George Bush) Nevertheless, things have changed since the 70's. And if the French have managed to grow an industry in such a way as to have improved it, we need to look at it closer and more seriously. But I will sday this ... we must also take our older reactors off line and upgrade them ... make them safer. We must also contract with the French to take our nuclear waste, the stuff we curreently bury (I hate that notion) and reprocess it, like they do with their own nuclear byproducts. Their's is a better way, I am sure.

[decristo50]

I am very much aware of the conflicts inherent in this issue. As someone whose values and politics were formed in the 60's & 70's I tend to be concerned about nuclear anything. However, this is a different time and the demands associated with global warming forces us to reevaluate old precepts. Even back then, I was never 'against' nuclear energy ... I just was unsure of the industry to make it safe. Even so, one could not totally dismiss the science for what it was, and what it might do as an energy source. That would be like assuming the science didn't exist. (If we did that, we might as well call ourselves George Bush) Nevertheless, things have changed since the 70's. And if the French have managed to grow an industry in such a way as to have improved it, we need to look at it closer and more seriously. But I will sday this ... we must also take our older reactors off line and upgrade them ... make them safer. We must also contract with the French to take our nuclear waste, the stuff we curreently bury (I hate that notion) and reprocess it, like they do with their own nuclear byproducts. Their's is a better way, I am sure.

[goggles32]

I noticed that your report didn't even mention geothermal energy. The nuke indusry's self-congratulatory spokepeople don't even deign to mention real alternatives. Guess it'll take yet another disaster before environmentalists are not dismissed as wide eyed innocents. What a shame.
Another victory for big brother.

[HandsomeWarren]

TO: Nordeck52: As an ex-nuclear engineer, I know that controlled nuclear fusion, i.e. hydrogen fusion is also NOT an option. In 1950, Dr. Edward Teller theorized the existence of nuclear fusion. However, even with Government research subsidy in the intervening 50 years, there has not been any demonstrated sustainable controlled nuclear fusion power source for even one second. Nuclear fusion is now waiting on advances in super-conducting magnets and new alloys for high temperature containment. Both of these are large technical obstacles. In addition, there is only 100 years supply of the lithium-tritium fuel. These problems ARE NOT expected to be overcome in the forseeable future. Government funding for nuclear fusion has declined to near ZERO over the past 5 years.(email from DOE, Office of Nuclear Fusion to Warren Reynolds) Even with massive Government funding, nuclear fusion would not expected to be commercialized until after 2060, if at all. Thus, Nuclear Fusion will not be available when the remaining fossil fuel supply is exhausted. We now have to actively develop the solar-hydrogen energy option while we still have sufficient fossil fuel to the make the transition.
Dr. Warren Reynolds
see: www.hydrogennow.org "Why We Need the Solar-Hydrogen Economy Now"

[inspired07]

I wish CBS would do a report on WIND ENERGY! !Lauvergeon's comment about only watching TV when you have wind is FALSE. Wind turbines work even with a breeze. "But now engineers at the University of Hong Kong and a private renewable energy company have developed a new micro wind turbine that can generate electricity even if wind speeds are as low as two meters per second.The energy generated by the turbines is stored in a battery, which then powers electrical appliances" The wind could produce at least 20% of the US's energy- it is completely emissions free (unlike nuclear power). Why not harness the wind, the least it could do is HELP! ! I ask "Why not try it?" It seems a lot less expensive than Nuclear as well!

www.windenergyworks.org
www.motorwavegroup.com

[canongate9]

We may be finally waking up! Nuclear has long been a successful source of energy, and like 'em or not, the French have proven how well it can work. With new technologies discussed in this piece both uncontrolled reactions and long-term disposal or re-use of spent fuel are not the problem they once were. The only question is why the USA sat this one out for so long. Now we need an investment in infrastructure to produce and distribute hydrogen for use in the vehicles Ford can already build to operate on hydrogen. We really don't have to invent anything here. We just have to make it happen.

One remaining issue not mentioned much is that fissionable mineral deposits are likely to run out long before fossil fuels do. Guess we'll have to send our bombs to France to refine back into fuel grade material.

[barleyman20]

Now that you have covered the nuclear side, I would love to see a piece on this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/02/19/ccview19.xml

[nordeck52]

Nuclear energy is the way to go. Just make sure it's through nuclear fusion, not fission. There is too much risk involved with fission, but with fusion, there's an unlimited fuel supply. The only problem is meeting the requirements necessary for fusion to occur. But I think it is a great idea to go on the nuclear energy route.

[bc123]

People are looking to CBS for "fair and balanced"? Face it. It's all biased to The Right now. Fox just borders on propaganda. I guess people can't see the forest for the trees. Corporate news in America is conservative. It always will be. Mainstream media (in the U.S., at least) will never be fair and balanced.

[oz132home]

I expect this kind of reporting from Fox News.
The attractive young French Woman's comments notwithstanding, nuclear is the most complex and EXPENSIVE, not to mention dangerous method to generate electricity ever devised by man.
Last night's 60 Minutes was more skewed "journalism." such as one expects from the likes of Fox News. Solar and Wind power are not merely "temporary" solutions, as the young lady says. They are the core of any hope we may have to save the planet. The renewed push toward nuclear power is irresponsible on an epic scale. It would trade global warming for a future of
uncontemplated nuclear horrors.
Talk to Harvey Wasserman. Talk to Nader. If Barry Commoner and Emory Lovins
(energy advisor to the carter White House) are still around, talk to them. Had Commoner and Lovins been listened to in 1980, we would have a solar infrastructure by now, be on our way toward curbing global warming, and NOT be in Iraq, fighting over oil!

Why do we always have to do things the hard way?
When will we ever learn???

WHO do we look to for "Fair and Balanced"
reports on the vital issues of our time????
You owe your viewers better than that.

Mike Olszanski
3566 North Cross Trail
La Porte, IN 46350

[rf35]

I support nuclear power as a temporary fix to the fossil fuel issue. Yes, I realize fossil fuels will be burned in the construction and maintenance of the plants and the mining of the fuel material, but come on people...we need to do something. Wringing our hands about all the problems of any non-coal source of electricity is not just useless, it's dangerous. While we protest every alternative power source, the country's oil/coal base gets get richer; the Middle-East gets richer; and the atmosphere get more polluted.
Guess what? Building solar cells uses fossil fuel, too! Producing 1 ton of semi-conductor grade silicon produces 1.5 tons of CO2. I all for solar power and decentralized energy, but that won't happen overnight. We need nuclear in the interim.
Worried that plutonium waste will be stolen by terrorists? So why isn%u2019t that happening to the French? Why hasn%u2019t it happened at US plants? Pumping oil money into the Middle-East does more for terrorism that nuclear power.
Lower the coal use the grid, get the hydrogen cells for the cars, clean up the air.

[wakeup21]

Nuclear is the alternative energy of the future. Ignoring it is pure folly. Technology has advanced such that nuclear power plants today are very, very safe. Think of how you tuned your television 30 years ago when nuclear power plants were last built in the US. You used rabbit ears to bring in the signal. Today we have HD. Nuclear power plant technology has advanced too. Chernobyl and TMI were caused by operator error. Today such events would be impossible as the problems would have been averted immediately by the systems monitoring the plants. Nuclear is safe and cheap and it protects the environment.

[neilrieck]

I am 100% certain we need to return to nuclear power in order to reduce global warming. But there are a couple of things that need to change: First off, reactor operators should be employed by the government (or at very least need to be certified and retested like air traffic controllers). We cannot allow extreme capitalism to get involved with safety situations. Secondly, maybe the world should consider looking at heavy-water reactor technologies (like CANDU) which are very safe and easy to shut down. Thirdly, a new technology which goes by the acronym of DUPIC can be used to burn nuclear waste in the reactor. This will minimize, but not eliminate, the waste problem. Please check out the following link for more infomation: "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprocessed_uranium"

[omega39-2009]

Hey, I thought we hated the French...after we went through the whole childish ordeal of renaming French fries and French toast all of a sudden we're looking to them for leadership? Bush and his neo-con supporters really need to start printing up programs so that we can readily identify the enemy du jour.

[godi70]

Please believe me:

The world has counter its hours!