Comments on: France: Vive Les Nukes

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

[jsteven40]

The article downplayed US technological adavances. Westinghouse has licensed a new generation nuclear reactor (AP1000) and GE has licensed (ABWR) and is working on licensing yet a more advanced reactor (ESBWR).

Safety is the nuclear industry has not remained constant over the years; plant continuious retrofit to improve safety of existing plants.

People talk about the "hydrogen economoy" to get cars off gasoline. The problem is that hydrogen is like electricity -- it is a means of transporting energy -- not energy itself. We cannot "mine" hydrogen in any major amount; we have to make it out of something else (such as separating water) and that takes engery in. Nuclear is one of the few large electrical sources that could be used to separate water to make that hydrogen.

Wind and Solar and conservation have important roles to play, but to start halting slowing the increase of the world heating up (let alone reversing it) new nuclear plants need to built to replace as much power we non-C02 sources.

[santina7]

I was wondering were the great journalism of 60 min. was. Clean Nuclear power? What about Platonium, the by product of a Nuclear reactor? The most deadley element, with a half life of 1000's years. Plutonium on the railroads going to Yucca Mountain in NV, 80 miles from the fastest growing metopolotin in the United States. How could you forget this important part of Nuclear Power? Where is all the Plutonium going?

[killaw]

@renewable

Nice spamming, i guess it is your only argument while you dare to speak of "debate". The claims that you seems to support in the article you quoted are at best irrelevant if not fallacious...

[cbtdbn]

@Killaw. France is not energy independent with uranium- even if they a small mine or 2. Admittedly they are getting it from other nations with a preference on relying on poorer, powerless nations that can be exploited easier. A few more heat waves and France will be using more A/C. The energy industry solution to increased air conditioning demand is to burn oil, coal, and uranium to make steam, throw 80% of the energy into the air as waste heat(counting transmission losses) so we can be cooler in our homes and offices - duh!!! The sun sends 170 trillion kilowatts to the earth on a continuous basis. 30% is reflected, 47% is converted to heat, 23% drives the evaporation/precipitation cycle, 2.1% goes into wind, wave, and get this 1/4 of 1% goes to photosynthesis which is 1.7% efficient and gives us all the plant growth. Solar panels are nearly 10 times as effiient as photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is responsible for all of the oil, coal, and gas we presently use. That's how Brazil's gets alcohol - from the sun via photosynthesis to sugar cane to alcohol. Portugal is on the right track. A 20 story building on 1 square block in Phoenix with solar panel on the roof and south wall will procduce 3000kW of electricity - now that's cool.

[renewable-2009]

One sided paid commercial for a failed technology new plants costing more than any other source and pumping up large engineering and corporate raiders who need charity to survive.

This story repeates lies and distorts facts to pump up a failure and uses scare tactics to convince joe public that it will stop global warming and pollution. LIES

http://www.commondrhttp://wwhttp://www.chttp://www.

Published: 27 June 2004

Nuclear power cannot solve global warming, the international body set up to promote atomic energy admits it.

And it Pollutes

Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen is cited and quoted extensively below.

http://www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2007/db20070326_366468.htm

Business Week
Top News March 26, 2007

New Debate Over Nuclear Option

Supporters of nuclear energy say it's a safe, clean alternative to
traditional sources. A new report argues it's not as clean as many think
by Moira Herbst

This so called debate for new plants is simply a scam and a non starter no matter what corporate lackies posing as news stories try to tell you.

[stratetalk]

The show incorrectly states that because "nuclear plants emit no greenhouse gases that France has the cleanest air in the industrialized world." Clean air is defined by the EPA as concentrations of criteria pollutants: ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead and particulates. The primary greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chloro- and flouro- carbons, and sulfur hexaflouride. Ozone is formed primarily by the chemical interaction of nitrogen dioxide and volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight and not by direct emission. Nuclear power contributes to clean air because it does not emit the criteria pollutants, not because it doesn't emit greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases contribute to global warming but calling greenhouse gases pollution has confused the public and reporters about clean air.

[renewable-2009]

One sided paid commercial for a failed technology costing more and pumping up large engineering and corporate raiders who need charity to survive.

This story repeates lies and distorts facts to pump up a failure and uses scare tactics ot tonvince joe puplic that it will stop global warming and pollution. LIES

http://www.commondrhttp://wwhttp://www.chttp://www.

Published: 27 June 2004

Nuclear power cannot solve global warming, the international body set up to promote atomic energy admits it.

And it Pollutes

Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen is cited and quoted extensively below.

http://www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2007/db20070326_366468.htm

Business Week
Top News March 26, 2007

New Debate Over Nuclear Option

Supporters of nuclear energy say it's a safe, clean alternative to
traditional sources. A new report argues it's not as clean as many think
by Moira Herbst

This so called debate for new plants is simply a scam and a non starter no matter what corporate lackies posing as news stories try to tell you.

[renewable-2009]

One sided paid commercial for a failed technology costing more and pumping up large engineering and corporate raiders who need charity to survive.

This story repeates lies and distorts facts to pump up a failure and uses scare tactics ot tonvince joe puplic that it will stop global warming and pollution. LIES

http://www.commondrhttp://wwhttp://www.chttp://www.

Published: 27 June 2004

Nuclear power cannot solve global warming, the international body set up to promote atomic energy admits it.

And it Pollutes

Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen is cited and quoted extensively below.

http://www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2007/db20070326_366468.htm

Business Week
Top News March 26, 2007

New Debate Over Nuclear Option

Supporters of nuclear energy say it's a safe, clean alternative to
traditional sources. A new report argues it's not as clean as many think
by Moira Herbst

This so called debate for new plants is simply a scam and a non starter no matter what corporate lackies posing as news stories try to tell you.

[envirochick]

Isn't it interesting that the word CONSERVATION did not come up once in your pro-nuclear propaganda piece. Americans represent 5% of the world's population, yet we consume a quarter of the world's energy. Our energy over-consumption and waste is appalling. But here are some facts that your one-sided piece missed entirely:

By taking appropriate energy-saving measures, by 2010 the United States can have an energy system that reduces costs by $530 per household per year and reduces global warming pollutant emissions to 10 percent below 1990 levels. (Energy Innovations report)

Just by using the "off the shelf" energy-efficient technologies available today, we could cut the cost of heating, cooling, and lighting our homes and workplaces by up to 80%. (U.S. Department of Energy and Maryland Energy Administration)

Replacing one incandescent lightbulb with an energy-saving compact fluorescent bulb means 1,000 pounds less carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere and $67 dollars is saved on energy costs over the bulb's lifetime. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Alliance to Save Energy)

A decrease of only 1% in industrial energy use would save the equivalent of about 55 million barrels of oil per year, worth about $1 billion.

Why didn't your pro-nuclear piece mention any of these facts?

You owe your viewers an entire program on energy conservation!

[hallofrecord]

The French are correct. While other "CO2-free" technologies may be able to deliver some of our nation's electrical power needs, the vast amount of electricity will have to come from nuclear power if coal/natural gas fired plants are to be replaced.

In addition to the uranium nuclear power plants, there may be new thorium nuclear powers plant in our future if current research proves positive.

Also, an entirely different power plant based on plasma arc incineration of waste offers the potential for not only providing "CO2-free" electric power generation, but, at the same time, dramatically reduce our waste disposal problems.

You can search CBS for that or try hallofrecord.blogspot.com and search there. Either way, you should come away with a greater appreciation for nuclear power as a viable alternative for our energy needs.

For those who still fear nuclear power, it is time to wake up to the fact that what happened in Russia and what almost happened at Three Mile Island are issues of a technology that is as far removed from today as the 45 rpm record.

[omega39-2009]

Nuclear power would solve virtually all of our energy problems. Relatively quickly. The risks have been overblown. If the French can do it, surely we can do it. Thank heavens our leaders are starting to see the light!!!

Yikes!! With the way Bush has been appointing cronies as department heads while simultaneously underfunding departments to slowly strangle them, we would have our own Chernobyl in no time.

[ryan829-2009]

I want to know how in the last year Brazil became oil independent by growing sugarcane, and Portugal just in the last week is able to produce enough electricity for 8000 homes with just 150 acres of solar panels and plans to also become oil independent and have 45 percent of its total energy come from renewable energy by 2010, and we, the United States in all of its glory, is still thinking about nuclear power. Am I missing something?

[gunter76]

I was really surprised by 60 Minutes producers' trade off of investigative journalism for this puff piece on nuclear power.

A good start might have been to inquire why tens of thousands of French citizens filled 5 major cities on March 17, 2007 in protest of new construction of Areva's EPR reactor. It would have reflected the in-depth reporting that 60 Minutes is otherwise noted for.

Moreover why did the producers take a pass on addressing the serious environmental problems in both The English Channel (La Manche)and the Irish Sea as a result of the French and United Kingdom reprocessing programs for nuclear waste. Merely mirroring the nuclear industry's imagery of "recycling" of nuclear waste that instead volumetrically increases the nuclear waste problem as a less stable corrosive highly radioactive liquid.

Or perhaps they could have asked why both the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the largest US nuclear power company dropped the design certificatioun of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor like a hot potato several years ago? Or about the 1986 accident at the first commercial PBMR in Germany that permanently shutdown its further operation?

I am really curious as to why your usually probing news coverage swallowed this industry story hook, line and sinker without any balance what so ever?

[janntaylor]

Nuclear power would solve virtually all of our energy problems. Relatively quickly. The risks have been overblown. If the French can do it, surely we can do it. Thank heavens our leaders are starting to see the light!

[killaw]

@ cbtdbn

what you have to acknowledge is that there is uranium all around the world, in Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Namibia, Niger, Uzbekistan, USA, Ukraine, China, South Africa, Czech Republic, India, Romania, Germany, Pakistan, Brazil, etc, and yep France have also its mines. It is better than having to rely exclusively on Russia/Algerian gas or middle-east oil, and that's why nuclear energy was on its rise in France after the 70s oil crises.

Otherwise i completely agree with you over solar energy for air conditioning, etc, even if the figures are not as much excessive concerning air conditioning percentage in the energy consumption in France.

EDF electricity production:

* nuclear: 74.5%
* hydro-electric: 16.2%
* thermal: 9.2%
* wind power and other renewable sources: 0.1%

cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_France

[cbtdbn]

EDF's CEO says nuclear power is energy independence for France. Perhaps you could follow up with a visit to one of France's uranium mines - if they had one. For atomic Annie question is why not use solar energy for air conditioning which is 1/3 of consumption and is needed when the sun is beating down. Besides every drop of oil, chunk of coal, and cu. ft. of natural gas is solar energy stored in the earth for the last 6 billion years. Finally, for the deputy DoE guy. If nuclear is so cost effective why all the billions of $ in subsidues, liability exemptions, and tax incentives necessary. You would think business would jump on this money maker. The more we are miseducated and misinformed by DoE and the power companies, the more likely we are to think nuclear is good. Come on Steve, how about some good follow up questions.

[perception5]

Americans today can thank the Democrats and one of the biggest donors, environmentalist's, for American not building any nuclear power plants since the 1970's. America has 108 current nuk plants operating and providing 20% of our electric. If it were not for the Dems blocking legisation, because of money coming in from folks like the Sierra Club, America would probalby not have one "oil burning" power plant and we would not be pumping CO2 into the atomosphere..............

SO American's next time you see a DEM or one of their rich liberal Enviro buddies........say :Thanks A Lot!!!!!!!!

[djermano1]

The radioactive waste is a concern, with workers working around it for reprocessing. And the life is limited. There is not an great deal of uranium in the world, and with its limited supply how is it 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. Instead of polluting the air its waste is a huge problem. In fact it certainly costs in building the recycling plant costs more than the original nuke plant that supplies the electricity. Nuke power 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.
Better to dig a tunnel to the center of the earth for heat to run generators, than nuke risks.