Skip to main content

Double-Checking The Nuclear Numbers in France

By Eric McErlain
They had a presidential debate in France last night, and the moderator asked the two candidates how much of France's electricity was generated by nuclear power:
Both candidates stumbled on the question of nuclear power. [Nicolas] Sarkozy, 52, said nuclear plants produce 50 percent of the country's electricity. [Segolene] Royal put the number at 17 percent. Last year, 78 percent of French power production was nuclear, according to the industry ministry. Nuclear accounts for about 17 percent of total energy consumption.
For more on the French nuclear program, click here.
Labels:

Comments

Joffan said…
I had a hard time believing that 78% nuclear electricity translates to 17% total energy...

This site indicates a figure I can more easily believe (graph 9), of 41% nuclear proportion of total energy.
May 4, 2007 at 11:37 AM
NNadir said…
Incroyable!

I really can't believe it. A basic question about one of the most important industries in France and neither Presidential candidate knows what is happening?

I hope which ever of them becomes President will be surrounded with people who can educate them.
May 4, 2007 at 12:23 PM
NNadir said…
Joffran: I'm going to steal this link. It's great!
May 4, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Anonymous said…
78% of French total generation (549.4 TWH's) comes from nuclear (426 TWH's). But, 76 nuclear TWH's are exported (net exports are 68 TWH's, but that includes a subtraction of 8 TWH's by imports), so 350 nuclear TWH's are consumed by the French, comprising 72.5% of French electrical consumption (482 TWH's).

Further, the average capacity factor for French nuclear is about 77%, with exports. Without exports that factor would be about 63%. Without imports it would be even lower, in order to handle the daytime peak, perhaps around 60%.

French nuclear power becomes much more economical if it's part of a larger system, which can help match it's output to demand. In that way nuclear is quite similar to wind power.
May 7, 2007 at 4:22 PM
brian wang said…
I was wanting to send a contact to Nadir and the contributors/editors of NEU nuclear notes abut could not find contact info.

I wanted to get your feedback on the article that I had written here
about linking energy policy with transportation policy

http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/05/better-economy-and-government-budgets.html

My apologies for using the comments as means of contact

Thanks

Brian wang
blwang at gmail dot com
May 7, 2007 at 7:39 PM
Anonymous said…
I don't think nuclear (even French nuclear) is similar to wind, for one very important reason. Matching demand or not, there's no way aroiund the fact that wind capacity factor is really quite low compared with nuclear. Last I checked, wind was running about 25-30% CF. That doesn't match up well with the 77% CF for the French units, or the 90+% for the US fleet.
May 7, 2007 at 8:59 PM
Anonymous said…
" there's no way aroiund the fact that wind capacity factor is really quite low compared with nuclear."

Nuclear is designed to have a capacity factor of roughly 90%, so 77% causes a proportionate excess cost per KWH. On-shore wind is designed to have a capacity factor in the range of 30%, so if you get 30% that's not a problem.
May 9, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap
1 comment
Read more

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

By
Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu
Post a Comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin
Post a Comment
Read more