Skip to main content

WSJ: "Remove the regulatory barriers to further investment in nuclear power."

In the wake of last week's news concerning the award of the ITER project to France, the Wall Street Journal is suggesting that the U.S. could learn much (subscription required) from the example of France's experience with nuclear energy:
No country gets a larger share of its total electricity from nuclear power than France at 78%. Perhaps more amazing, France consumes less than 4% of the world's energy but produces a sixth of its nuclear power. Because the groundwork for this nuclear proficiency was laid in decades past, France deserves to be at the center of the attempt to take the next big step forward, fusion . . .

"Sudden climate change" -- the current re-definition of the "global warming threat" -- will come up at this week's G8 summit in Scotland. Instead of browbeating President Bush for not signing the Kyoto Protocol, industrial nation leaders could do more for economic growth and the environment by vowing to follow France's example and remove the regulatory barriers to further investment in nuclear power.
Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Tom DC/VA said…
"industrial nation leaders could do more for economic growth and the environment by vowing to follow France's example and remove the regulatory barriers to further investment in nuclear power."

More lies from the WSJ. The French nuclear industry is highly state-controlled and hardly model of free-market enterpise.
Rod Adams said…
I have to concur with Tom on this one. The French nuclear power program is certainly not an example of how removing regulatory barriers would encourage more nuclear power development.

France is, however, does provide some good basis for understanding why some countries provide fertile ground for groups opposed to nuclear power while others do not.

Until De Gaul recognized that France could develop and build a domestic nuclear industry, it was a country whose history since the Industrial Revolution had been greatly influenced by the fact that it is not blessed with indigenous fossil fuel resources. It was a great power in the age of sail, but once people began capturing power from coal, oil and gas, France faded in comparison to its rivals - mainly Great Britain, Germany, Russia and the United States - all of whom had excellent sources of fossil fuel.

France was able to build nukes with little opposition because there was no fossil infrastructure to pay the anti-nukes to demonstrate.
Vern Cornell said…
Sir:
I cannot agree with Tom and Rod.
France is very competitive.
She wants to build in China and elsewhere in competition with the two USA companies and in compete with SoKorea and Japan. We should surely applaud this.
Vern cornell

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…