Skip to main content

60 Minutes to Profile French Nuclear Industry

According to my colleague in media relations, Steve Kerekes, 60 Minutes is putting the finishing touches on a report on the French nuclear energy industry. Though it won't run this Sunday, look for it to air sometime in the next few weeks.

For more on the French nuclear program, which provides 80% of that nation's electricity, visit the World Nuclear Association.

UPDATE: My boss, Scott Peterson, sent in the following note:
Let's not forget the the French program is modeled after the U.S. program, using U.S. technology as its base. Despite the fact that the French have gone forward with a state electricity company to build 57 (?) reactors, the U.S. still produced more electricity from nuclear energy than France and Japan combined!
NEI also maintains a library of nuclear statistics.

Technorati tags: , , , , , 60 Minutes,

Comments

Starvid, Sweden said…
Jerome Guillet has written a good summary of the French nuclear power program.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/10/182655/427
Don Kosloff said…
I suspect the program will be negative. I can't imagine 60 Minutes doing a positive show on nuclear power.

It will be interesting to see if they will be negative about the French program or negative about the US program because it is perceived to be different from the US program, thus putting the US program in a bad light. Another possibility is that the French program will be used only as a stage prop for introducing the persecution of the French regulators for not becoming hysterical about the Chernoble fallout.

I am sure that they will not mention the French scientific establishment's official trashing of the LNT for ionizing radiation.

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

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…