France: Vive Les Nukes

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

(CBS)  With power demands rising and concerns over global warming increasing, what the world needs now is an efficient means of producing large amounts of carbon free energy. One of the few available options is nuclear, a technology whose time seemed to come and go and may now be coming again.

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."

[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.

[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!!!!!!!!

[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.

[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

[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!

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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...

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

[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!

[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.

[jdweymouth]

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

[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.

[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.

[godi70]

Please believe me:

The world has counter its hours!

[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.

[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"

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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"