France: Vive Les Nukes
Steve Kroft On How France Is Becoming The Model For Nuclear Energy Generation
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Kroft's Reporter's Notebook
Only On The Web: Steve Kroft discusses his "60 Minutes" segment on the renewed interest in nuclear power as a "green" energy source, and the safety issues involved.
-
Video
A Meltdown-Proof Reactor?
Web Extra: MIT Professor Andrew Kadak explains to Steve Kroft how a Pebble Bed reactor works and why the technology is meltdown-proof.
-
Video
Vive Les Nukes!
In Full: As the process to make energy continues to cause global warming, America may need to reconsider nuclear energy, like the French, who depend almost entirely on it. Steve Kroft reports.
-
Photo
(CBS/AP)
-
Interactive
Eye On Energy
Explore the production and consumption of energy in the U.S. Find out more about energy costs, and the use of fossil fuels, nuclear power and renewable energy sources.
-
Interactive
Alternative Energy
Learn about the types of renewable energy that are used in the U.S. and the regions of the country considered to be most suitable for each kind.
-
Fast Facts
France
Learn about the people, economy and history.
For the first time in decades, new nuclear plants are being built, and not just in Iran and North Korea. With zero green house gas emissions, the U.S. government, public utilities and even some environmental groups are taking a second look at nuclear power.
And as correspondent Steve Kroft reports, one of the first the places they are looking is to France, where it has been a resounding success and the attitude is "Vive Les Nukes."
When much of the world spurned nuclear power, 30 years ago, the French, being French, decided to go their own way and embrace it. Paris, the "City of Light," is lit by nuclear energy, which powers just about everything else in France: its homes, its factories, even its high speed railroads.
Nearly 80 percent of the country's electricity comes from 58 nuclear power plants, crammed into a country the size of Texas. Pierre Gadonniex, the head "Electricite de France," the country’s national utility says it all began with a French obsession for energy independence.
"In France, we have nearly no coal. We have no oil. So clearly, nuclear appeared to be the best way," Gadonniex explains. "And 30 years later, it appears to be a very smart decision."
Because nuclear plants emit no greenhouse gases, France has the cleanest air in the industrialized world, and because the price of oil is now around $60 a barrel, it has the lowest electric bills in Europe. In fact, France has so much cheap electricity, it exports it to its European neighbors. French nuclear plants supply power to parts of Germany, Italy and help light the city of London.
"It is a very competitive way of producing electricity when oil prices are beyond, I would say, around $40 a barrel," Gadonniex tells Kroft.
And the rest of the world has taken notice. Nearly a dozen countries, including the United States, are either building or planning to build new nuclear plants, and some of that business will go to AREVA, the French government monopoly that controls every step of its nuclear industry from uranium mining to plant design construction to radioactive waste disposal.
Deep in the wine country of Burgundy, in a massive factory, AREVA is building the first European reactors since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.
Bertrande Durrande, the Executive Vice President for Manufacturing, tells Kroft the business is "definitely growing."
Besides the new reactors it is building for France and Finland, Durrande says, AREVA is bidding on a project to build four new nuclear reactors in China.
Asked how many plants he thinks might be built in the next 20 years, Durrande says, "A minimum of 20. Which is quite a change when you compare it to the past."
And some of them will almost certainly be in the United States, which hasn't built a new nuclear plant since the 1970's. With energy prices and global temperatures near their reported highs, and the possibility that greenhouse gases will be regulated, the Bush administration is pushing a nuclear revival.
In many respects, the nuclear industry in the United States has disappeared. Over 100 plants were cancelled in the 1970's.
Kroft talked to Clay Sell, the Deputy Secretary of Energy and the administration's point man on nuclear power. With world energy demand expected to rise 50 percent over the next 25 years, he says it is the only practical option for producing huge amounts of electricity with no carbon emissions.
"No serious person can look at the challenge of greenhouse gases and climate change and not come to the conclusion that nuclear power has to play a significant and growing role in meeting that challenge worldwide," Sell says.
Asked how much interest there is right now in building new plants, Sell says, "There is a tremendous amount of interest. Two years ago there was exactly zero plants on the drawing boards here in the United States. Today, there are about 15 companies talking about building over 30 commercial nuclear power reactors. Now, all of those won't get built. But we think there's a significant chance that many of them will be built."
But so far, no one has signed up to actually build one, an undertaking that requires a huge investment of capital and a certain amount of faith. In the 1980's and 90's political opposition, regulatory delays, cost overruns, and a drop in electricity demand forced utilities to pull the plug on dozens of projects, and the industry has a long memory.
"I recall one story, a man who is a CEO today of one of our leading companies," Sell says, "And he described the pain associated with beginning what he thought would be a billion-dollar plant in the 1970's, and bringing it online as a $9 billion plant 20 years later. And he made the point to me that that is not a lesson that'll quickly be forgotten in the industry."
Produced By L. Franklin Devine
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


- 1
- 2
- next
See all 78 CommentsBetter to dig a tunnel to the center of the earth for heat to run generators, than nuke risks.
SO American's next time you see a DEM or one of their rich liberal Enviro buddies........say :Thanks A Lot!!!!!!!!
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
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
% 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.
John Yaple
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The world has counter its hours!
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.
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
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/02/19/ccview19.xml
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.
www.windenergyworks.org
www.motorwavegroup.com
Dr. Warren Reynolds
see: www.hydrogennow.org "Why We Need the Solar-Hydrogen Economy Now"
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 78 Comments