Comments on: France: Vive Les Nukes

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

[djermano1]

The radioactive waste is the problem, with workers working around it for reprocessing. And the life is limited. Reprocessing costs billions and it really does not eliminate the waste. All it does is slow down the amount of waste to store.Because after reprocessing the reprocessed rods, you still have the same problem of where to store the waste. 2nd reprocessing is useless. There is not a great deal of uranium in the world, and with its limited supply how is spending billions to build these plants to later sell as cheap electricity? The Nuke business is like the Oil business, low supply and the price keeps climbing.In fact it certainly costs more in building the recycling plant than the cost to build the original nuke plant that supplies the electricity. Nuke power for electricity is a bandaid; and then countries are going to be fighting over who gets the nuke materials; the military for bomb building or for the electricity grid. With the heat given off by these plants how can they honestly say nuclear power does not cause global warming? And the heat lasts for years in its radioactive waste form. They should save the uranium for their plans in space. Ship payloads to Mars, and build a plant there. Certainly it would benefit that planet, give it heat, and plenty of space to store the waste. You Scientists don't use your head enough I think. Obviously politicians never do anyway. Mars is the perfect place for Nuclear Technology.

[kcstan11]

Nuclear is the way to go ...

I saw an interview of Patrick Moore (a greenpeace co-founder) 2 weeks ago on a Canadian TV show from Toronto. He has broken with Greenpeace on this topic and now strongly supports nuclear energy and Canada's current government is pursuing more nuclear power plants.

He also had a good article in the Washington Post on 4-16-2006 in support of nuclear.

The problem in the US is that we legislated the storage of the nuclear fuel rods after they are used the first time. At that point these rods still contain 95% of the fuel. By reprocessing these rods we can use up that 95% and then bury them for 300 years ... after which they are almost harmless. This is exactly what France and Europe are doing.

It sure does look like we have been screwed by our government again.

[jdweymouth]

What do you know? The liberals are crying for nuclear energy! And to think; 35 years ago they were doing the exact opposite!

[reindeargirl]

Nuclear power is the most expensive, dirty and dangerous way to boil water ever invented. Expensive beyond belief because no one factors in all the pre- and post costs associated, such as trying to find a "home" for the waste which contains plutonium and other highly toxic and deadly radioactive elements. Here in SC we know about that, as we have been the pay toilet of the country, home to over a billion curies of deadly long lived radiation, buried in shallow land trenches, or rusting leadking tanks, slowlly migrating into our water, soil and air.Dirty, because every day the smoke stacks of reactors spew Cesium 137, Strontium 90 and Tritium, all of which are known cancer and birth defect causing isotopes. Private studies show very clearly the rise in cancers and birth defects around operating reactors.This is a shameful coverup of Stalinesque proportions. And risky because every day in this country we have a game of Russian roulette going on, as reactors with long histories of operating problems are allowed to continue operating. I am sure that the brilliant minds that worked on the space shuttle would never have believed that not one, not two, but THREE shuttles could have blown up. Its only a matter of time before we have our own Chernobyl, and like Belarus, some section of our beautiful country becomes uninhabitable for generations.

[dlangenheim]

Thank you 60 Minutes for finally doing a story that needed to be told. The anti-nuke ex hippies and greens need to be pushed aside. We must have nuclear power for the United States to survive. Abundant nuclear power means the ability to produce hydrogen at a reasonable cost and between the two(hydrogen for vehicles and nuclear for electric) we would be free of oil for good. Standardized plant construction and streamlining of regulatory processes is a must. Yucca mountain must move forward as should research into recycling nuclear waste. There is no issue facing American today with more wide ranging impact than that of our conversion to a nuclear society. Maybe Rick Berman needs to work for the Pro Nuke lobby!

[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 can%u2019t allow extreme capitalism to get involved with safety situations. Secondly, maybe the world should consider looking at heavy-water reactor technologies which are very safe and really 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.

[slizzered1]

Taking nature%u2019s cue for cheaper solar power

Solar cell technology developed by the University%u2019s Nanomaterials Research Centre will enable New Zealanders to generate electricity from sunlight at a 10th of the cost of current silicon-based photo-electric solar cells.

http://masseynews.massey.ac.nz/2007/Press_Releases/04-04-07.html

[slizzered1]

"Wind and solar are you know, temporary sources of energy. It works when you have wind, it works when you have sun. No sun, no wind, no energy. You don't want watch TV only when you have wind."
Anne Lauvergeon

Is Anne Lauvergeon completely retarded or is she being deliberately misleading? Excess energy produced by wind or sun is stored in batteries. No sun, no wind -- still got energy. Unbelievable that CBS would put such a misleading quote at the head of an article about alternative energy? Maybe not: CBS WAS BOUGHT BY WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC IN 1995, A COMPANY WITH A BIG FAT STAKE IN THE CURRENT ENERGY STATUS QUO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS

Solar and wind power are de-centralized means of producing power. Families with the means to produce their own energy don't need to buy power from big, centralized companies like Westinghouse.
On the other hand, a small family cannot produce it's own nuclear energy. Westinghouse (CBS) has selfish reasons for misleading us about the benefits of de-centralized alternative energy sources.

My family uses solar power. We actually produce more energy than we can use. We'll never have to buy energy from a company like Westinghouse EVER AGAIN.

[slizzered1]

"Wind and solar are you know, temporary sources of energy. It works when you have wind, it works when you have sun. No sun, no wind, no energy. You don't want watch TV only when you have wind."
Anne Lauvergeon

Is Anne Lauvergeon completely retarded or is she being deliberately misleading? Excess energy produced by wind or sun is stored in batteries. No sun, no wind -- still got energy. Unbelievable that CBS would put such a misleading quote at the head of an article about alternative energy? Maybe not: CBS IS OWNED BY WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC, A COMPANY WITH A BIG FAT STAKE IN THE CURRENT ENERGY STATUS QUO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS

Solar and wind power are de-centralized means of producing power. Families with the means to produce their own energy don't need to buy power from big, centralized companies like Westinghouse.
On the other hand, a small family cannot produce it's own nuclear energy. Westinghouse (CBS) has selfish reasons for misleading us about the benefits of de-centralized alternative energy sources.

My family uses solar power. We actually produce more energy than we can use. We'll never have to buy energy from a company like Westinghouse EVER AGAIN.

[cal1148]

I was a nuclear engineer for 20 years (1965-1985) and did all aspects of design, safety calculations and construction. Unfortunately, it was programs like 60 minutes that lead to the demise of the industry. I moved on to rocket design and was involved with putting up most of the interplanetary probes. If you are a good engineer, it is easy to do the calculation which shows that nuclear power is the only realistic answer to this nations energy problems. With the dire predictions of global warming and the short time frames predicted to reach the tipping point, nuclear is the only energy solution that can be implemented. At 65, I won't be around to see the devistation of not going to a nuclear power base .... but my grandchildren will.
In the 1960-70 timeframe, schools had reactors on campus and taught the details of nuclear energy. Most of them have been removed and the technical base of engineers have mostly retired.
In the above time frame, there were 5 US companies that built nuclear power plants and now there is only 1 (GE). Westinghouse nuclear devision was sold to a foreign company.
We have had 30 years of safe nuclear power in this country. I believe that 60 minutes owes a debt to this nation for being partly responsible for the current power situation. How about 7-8 more pro nuclear 60 minute pieces to offset the 30 years of damage.

[csommer3]

Do they use nuclear energy to mine the uranium and transport it to the plant? Do they use uraniun to transport the highly radioactive waste around the country for reprocessing?

This was not a balanced report, it was a sales pitch for the nuclear industry.

I expect better from 60 Mins.

[djermano1]

The radioactive waste is a concern, with workers working around it for reprocessing. And the life is limited. Reprocessing costs billions and it really does not eliminate the waste. All it does is slow down the amount of waste tostore.Because after reprocessing the reprocessed rods, you still have the same problem of where to store the waste. 2nd reprocessing is useless. There is not a great deal of uranium in the world, and with its limited supply how is spending billions to build these plants to later sell as cheap electricity? The Nuke business is like the Oil business, low supply and the price keeps climbing.In fact it certainly costs more in building the recycling plant than the cost to build the original nuke plant that supplies the electricity. Nuke power for electricity is a bandaid; and then countries are going to be fighting over who gets the nuke materials; the military for bomb building or for the electricity grid. With the heat given off by these plants how can they honestly say nuclear power does not cause global warming? And the heat lasts for years in its radioactive waste form. They should save the uranium for their plans in space. Ship payloads to Mars, and build a plant there. Certainly it would benefit that planet, give it heat, and plenty of space to store the waste. You Scientists don't use your head enough I think. Obviously politicians never do anyway. Mars is the perfect place for Nuclear Technology.

[HandsomeWarren]

Mr. Kroft: As an ex-nuclear engineer, I know the nuclear problems first hand. I am against anymore nuclear plants. The "death knell" for the nuclear industry developed when serious technical mishaps and huge cost escalations occurred as well as the threat of terrorists obtaining nuclear material. The Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl and Monju nuclear reactor accidents caused a rapid decline in public acceptance of nuclear power. Since 1987, nearly all European countries, except France, have voted to oppose, ban, or phase-out nuclear power. Germany has agreed to shut down all nuclear power plants by 2020. The U.S. has not built a nuclear plant in 28 years while 16 of the 23 existing "aging nuclear dinosaurs" will need to be dismantled in the next 4 years costing the consumers $billions.
The solar-hydrogen economy is booming. In 2006, the world's wind energy market grew 25.2% valued at $13.4 billion and the world's solar PV market grew 19.1% valued at $10.6 billion while the solar-Stirling engine market grew 900%. A solar-hydrogen power plant can be built for 1/5 the cost of an equivalent-sized nuclear power plant. In 2005, two contracts were signed by SES, Inc. for construction in the Los Angles and San Diego areas for a 500 MWe (later to 850 MWe) and 300 MWe(later to 900 MWe) solar-Stirling engine power plants at guaranteed rates of $0.06/kw-hr to the electric companies. This construction is already underway.
Dr. Warren Reynolds

[jwyaple]

In 1998 I attended a Rotary International meeting and had the opportunity to have a dinner with an nuclear engineer that was in his 70's who called himself the Red Adair of the nucler industry. He consulted all over the world including France. He said the French use one design on every Nuclear plant right down to the color of the walls. If a problem occurs it can be corrected at each plant so the chances of an accident are greatly reduced,construction cost are controlled and operations are consistent. The US on the other hand used a Westinghouse, General Electric or other designs where new problems were almost expected. France had become the Henry Ford of Nuclear industry, what a novel idea.

John Yaple

[paulyboy421]

I am building solar lofts in Venice, CA. I am only allowed to meet
% 95 of my energy needs. This will take 100 sq. ft. I have 7000 sq.ft available. I could be powering 70 other homes. Why not change the law so I can sell back my power rather than start up nuclear power which has never been economically feasible without public subsidies. This is just a way for us to keep having to prop up
failed companies.

[cbtdbn]

@Killaw. I am glad we agree on renewables and conservation. I do have a question? If France gets 74.5% of it's electricity from nuclear. What percentage of that is derived from uranium that is mined within the national boundaries of France?

[walter4242]

Re your 4/8/07 nuclear power story on 60 Minutes:

While nuclear seems to be CO2 free, a global warming grand slam, this is simply not the case. Large oil inputs or equivalents are required for the nuclear fuel at every stage, from the strip mine to the final storage facility. Nuclear may be a carbon reduced energy source, but carbon free is a gross untruth, one that 60 Min should be questioning, not repeating.

There is a global shortage of Uranium, and separating the U235 is a further bottleneck. Nuclear development means a plutonium energy economy. This is what the French, Russians, Chinese are doing, converting the U238 "depleted" uranium to Plutonium in fast breeder reactors.

The Bush proposal for hundreds of new US facilities to create burn, and reprocess Pu would be a watershed for American society. Moving Pu about our country will require a vastly expanded national security aparatus. This big brother state will have to be maintained indefinitely, for centuries to come.

There is no question that there are more nukes, more plutonium, in our future. The question is whether 60 Minutes will help voters into our brave new plutonium century with our eyes open.

[walter4242]

Re your 4/8/07 nuclear power story on 60 Minutes:

While nuclear seems to be CO2 free, a global warming grand slam, this is simply not the case. Large oil inputs or equivalents are required for the nuclear fuel at every stage, from the strip mine to the final storage facility. Nuclear may be a carbon reduced energy source, but carbon free is a gross untruth, one that 60 Min should be questioning, not repeating.

There is a global shortage of Uranium, and separating the U235 is a further bottleneck. Nuclear development means a plutonium energy economy. This is what the French, Russians, Chinese are doing, converting the U238 "depleted" uranium to Plutonium in fast breeder reactors.

The Bush proposal for hundreds of new US facilities to create burn, and reprocess Pu would be a watershed for American society. Moving Pu about our country will require a vastly expanded national security aparatus. This big brother state will have to be maintained indefinitely, for centuries to come.

There is no question that there are more nukes, more plutonium, in our future. The question is whether 60 Minutes will help voters into our brave new plutonium century with our eyes open.

[killaw]

@ cbtdbn

I am all for solar/hydro & wind renewable energies everywhere they can be used and efficient, i am also for enforcing construction norms to make every house or office the less power hungry and the more oriented toward renewable energies, but at the current energy consumption rate and for the mid-term before maybe fusion or something else i prefer to have a backbone of the electricity production made of nuclear plants than of coal/oil power plants if anything worse.

[hypnotoad72]

I'll admit I'm naive and ignorant, but can't nuclear waste be 'enriched' to become re-usable again? That's got to count for something good, surely?