Skip to main content

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

By Eric McErlain
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

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.
July 6, 2005 at 2:27 AM
Anonymous 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
July 6, 2005 at 3:52 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more