Skip to main content

Nuclear Numbers Up in France

A poll over at Ouest France shows that support for nuclear energy has risen over the last two years, to the point that the percentage of people who do not support it has become strikingly small – at least among those with an opinion. Since there is no English version of the site, let’s look at the numbers as reported by World Nuclear News:

Of the 2004 respondents, 36% declared themselves to support the use of nuclear energy in France, up from 33% in November 2011 and 32% in July 2011. Meanwhile, the proportion expressing opposition to the use of nuclear energy had fallen to 14%, down 3% from the November 2011 figures and 6% from July 2011.

That leaves out half the population. What about them?

About a third of the population polled (34%) described themselves as "hesitant", or undecided, towards nuclear energy. Ifop [the polling firm] notes that for the first time since Fukushima, the pro-nuclear percentage of the population outnumbers the undecided. Meanwhile 16% of respondents said they had no opinion at all on the subject.

Hesitant and undecided are not the same thing, so I’ll assume these are two different groups squashed together. These folks are reachable – if Electricite de France is working for their support, it’s working. From an American perspective, meanwhile, the high number of hesitants can seem a case of French intransigence. But that’s a cliché,right?

59% of those polled agreed that France should maintain its current nuclear share in order to ensure its energy independence, up from 54% in a study carried out in March 2013.

The high on this metric was 67 percent in 2008, so the number here is getting better from what I assume is its low after the Japan accident. And it shows that the French fully understand that their country is rather resource poor – the reason it invested so heavily in nuclear energy back in the 70s.

Why care? Well, in a way, we need not. France could do with a little energy diversity – putting all its eggs in the nuclear coop has caused some issues in charging electric cars, at least it might theoretically  – and French President Francois Hollande wants to reduce the share of nuclear energy from about 80 percent to 50 percent. The poll numbers suggests this might be a harder sell than when Hollande ran for office last year, so, consequently, there will be a good deal of interest in his administration’s new energy policy when it is issued this fall.

This policy seems to be at the root of the poll and some of the news stories emerging in the French press now. Nuclear energy wasn’t precisely on the ropes last year when Hollande won the presidency and it’s even less so now. It’ll be interesting to see the reaction if the policy is markedly nuclear–unfriendly.

Comments

jimwg said…
If those figures are accurate, I highly suspect that the main reason is the silver lining of Fukushima's dark PR cloud; a meltdown -- Multiple Meltdowns at one crack -- don't spell Doomsday, forget tiny occassional catastrophes like oil and gas accidents putting away whole neighborhoods. In fact, Fuku was a big letdown to more than some...

Re: "putting all its eggs in the nuclear coop has caused some issues"

Gee whiz! Aircraft carriers put all their eggs in a single nuclear basket and do damn fine, so why can't whole cities and countries? No one squawked about baskets and mixes when King Oil was running things over a hundred years virtually all alone! Solar folks don't hawk "mixes" when they shout about ultimately running the whole world on sunlight, so why should nukes?

James Greenidge
Queens NY
"France could do with a little energy diversity – putting all its eggs in the nuclear coop has caused some issues in charging electric cars, at least it might theoretically – and French President Francois Hollande wants to reduce the share of nuclear energy from about 80 percent to 50 percent."

This is why France and other nations that use nuclear power need to start building nuclear power plants that are specifically dedicated to methanol fuel production. Methanol produced from nuclear power plants can then be utilized for peak-load power demands.

While methanol electric power for peak-load energy would be significantly more expensive than baseload nuclear power, it would only represent a small percent of the total electricity produced during the day which should mean only a marginal increase in the total cost of electricity. Of course, by the time methanol is being commercially produced from nuclear power plants, synthetic methanol may actually be cheaper than increasingly expensive fossil fuels.

Methanol, of course, can be produced through the synthesis of hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Hydrogen can be produced through the electrolysis of water and CO2 can be extracted from the air or seawater.

Methanol power plants have already been demonstrated in the US in modified natural gas power plants.

Methanol back up power in small fuel cell power plants is growing in popularity in the US.

Methanol, of course, can also be converted into-- gasoline!

Marcel F. Williams
trag said…
As Jim questions, what precisely is wrong with having all of one's electricity eggs in the nuclear basket? It's a fine turn of phrase, but your use of it is unsupported and unsupportable.

Apply a little more thought to what you are writing Mark. If you are going to make a giant claim like that, back it up with something. How, exactly, is there any danger in having all of one's electricity come from nuclear? It's not like a fuel embargo will work.

Your assertion is unsupported and non-sensical,and one would think that it goes against the goals of your host organization.
Anonymous said…
Maybe France has all it's eggs in the nuclear coop, but those are golden eggs and it would be foolish to kill the goose that laid them just to have a turkey dinner (or a dinner for turkeys). France has a stable and economic electricity supply, and as a result has a comparatively stable economy, unlike many of its neighbors. It has the lowest per capita electricity cost, the lowest carbon emissions and GHG production per capita. There is a reason for this, and it has to do with those golden eggs in the nuclear coop.

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…