"EPA Inspectors Pulled Up The Hudson River. 2023"
Posted on 07/04/2008 11:12:54 AM PDT by Republicain
LE CREUSOT (FRANCE): President Nicolas Sarkozy announced on Thursday that France will build a second third-generation EPR nuclear plant, arguing nuclear power was the country's best answer to soaring energy prices.
Sarkozy, who has made exporting French nuclear know-how a priority of his presidency, made the announcement during a speech on energy policy at an ArcelorMittal steel factory in central France.
France's first European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) -- one of only two under construction worldwide -- is being built by utilities giant Electricite de France (EDF) in Flamanville in northern France, set for completion in 2012.
Sarkozy said a new site would be chosen next year for the EPR, designed by French giant Areva as a safer and cleaner model of nuclear reactor, with construction to start in early 2011.
EDF, which operates France's 58 existing nuclear plants, immediately issued a statement welcoming Sarkozy's decision and saying it was "prepared to commit to this project".
But there were immediate protests from French environmentalists and anti-nuclear campaigners, who accused Sarkozy of reneging on a pledge to invest in renewable energy sources.
The president, who was accompanied on the factory visit by Areva chief executive Anne Lauvergeon, staunchly defended his choice.
"The days of cheap oil are over. More than ever, nuclear is an industry for the future and an indispensible energy source," Sarkozy said. "It's not a choice between nuclear or renewables, but nuclear and renewables," he said.
He argued that nuclear power produced electricity 30 to 50 percent cheaper than either gas or coal, and that replacing a coal plant with an EPR would cut some 11 million tonnes of global warming emissions per year. "We can be electricity exporters when we have neither oil nor gas. This is an historic chance for development."
The world's second producer of nuclear energy after the United States, France is vying to lead a worldwide revival of the industry, fuelled by worries about global warming and rising energy prices.
Nuclear power accounts for 87 percent of France's electricity production and its national champions EDF and Areva are world leaders in their field.
But Greenpeace savaged the decision to build a second EPR as "shocking", "stupid" and a "serious mistake". France's Green Party attacked the EPR as "useless, dangerous and expensive," saying the estimated three-billion-euro (4.75-billion-dollar) cost would be better spent on renewables. "France is becoming a nuclear show-room for Sarkozy the sales rep and Areva," it charged in a statement.
French anti-nuclear group Get Out of Nuclear called for a demonstration in Paris on July 12, the day before a summit of Mediterranean leaders in Paris, several of whom have struck nuclear cooperation accords with France.
Since Sarkozy's election last year, France has signed agreements on developing nuclear power with Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Libya and Jordan.
Areva, French oil giant Total and energy group Suez have partnered up to supply two EPR reactors to the United Arab Emirates.
And in November, Areva struck an eight-billion-euro (12.7 billion dollar) deal to provide two EPR reactors and nuclear fuel to China, the biggest single contract in civilian nuclear history.
Areva, along with German engineering group Siemens, is currently building the world's first EPR in Finland. But the project has run into delays linked to the quality of the concrete used, and is expected to go into service 18 months late, in 2011. Cement-pouring work at the French reactor in Flamanville also had to be halted in May after "anomalies" were detected at the facility. France's nuclear safety authority flashed a green light this month for construction to resume after EDF beefed up its technical inspections. EDF has said it is confident the Flamanville plant will enter service as planned in 2012. France's 58 current reactors will begin to age out of operation beginning in 2015.
The EPR, developed in the 1990s by Siemens and a subsidiary of Areva, is said to use 17 percent less fuel than current types of reactor and is designed to generate power for 60 years.
The French are capable of greatness and intelligence. So are we.
Send Congress to France and see how this lasts.
Why in heaven buld a EPR, instead of a PBR?
I don’t get it.
Start bringing in the electric plug-ins and let's quit pussyfootin' around. I would build them in a cluster in the north, along Hwy 395, and out beyond Indio. Build 3 new reactors at San Onofre in the hills, tear down the old buildings and let the greenies have the beach.
Who's running for Gov on this platform, nobody.
Listen... this is nice and all but Nuclear energy has nothing to do with oil. Cars and trucks STILL need gasoline...
"EPA Inspectors Pulled Up The Hudson River. 2023"
Nuke energy is electrical (the end result that is)......cars/trucks can become ev.
You can use an EPR as a breeder.
If we increase the nuke plants...we can reduce oil consumption...and coal consumption.
Coal to gasoline tech. as been around since the 40's...
Need to look at the big picture.....
Ohhhhhhhhhhh. Sure can’t do that with a PBR.
F’ing great - the frogs are doing the right thing and all of DC is asleep at the wheel.
You can also produce petroleum from nuclear technology—actually out of thin air.
If our nation begins to commit itself to nuclear energy, we could potentially be completely independent of Middle Eastern oil (and well, foreign oil, for that matter) for good.
This newer generation of electric cars could also be run from coal found in our soil and from nuclear energy. The future is ours if we have the leadership to take it.
Well, sort of. New cars are being released that don’t need gasoline—i.e. these new electric cars.
Further, nuclear energy can be used to produce petroleum:
Well, McCain has called for producing 45 new nuclear reactors in this country by 2030:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/18/politics/main4193122.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_4193122
Are you expecting people and businesses to actually MOVE INTO that socialist hellhole?
We try to let the fact that we are governed by socialist scofflaws not effect us too much, but they do get in the way.
Lastly, some of us chose to live near our relatives.
We make fun of the French, but they are light years ahead of us on this issue.
Well, I like that.
Oil companies are behind “Green electricity” since photovoltaic and wind production has to be constantly followed by other means, and this means can only be natural gas, because of regulation issues.
France is well ahead in the best electricity production technology, second Japan.
But it is, by nature, an UNSAFE design, compared to a PBR.
I was driving through the South Bohemia countryside with my Czech father-in-law and saw an enormous pair of towers over the horizon belching steam. He said it was the local nuclear power plant. It was huge, so I said, “Ah, Russian built, huh?” No, he said. “General Electric.”
Remember Marie Curie, though Polish, found France a welcome place to do her work on radiation. Now if they could just get the waiters to show some manners.....
Gotta admit: When it comes to energy the French make the US look like Neanderthals. ‘Rat or Republican, nobody in this country takes nuclear power seriously ... except maybe Navy admirals and physicists. We’re too busy screaming about oil. Pathetic.
There are technical obstacles and down sides involved in all realistic large scale power production methods. The EPR is as safe any other basic PWR design.
The PBR uses helium, not water. No ionization, therefore no release of radioactive coolant possible.
EPR is negative feedback like any other modern design PWR and is inherently safe even if run by trained monkeys as long as they do as they're told and don't go out of their way to break it.
PBR was of course stopped in the 60's because the materials didn't exist to handle the high temperatures at the time. They do now. Amazing what a few decades of research can get you.
Like you say though, you'll never get a Luddite enviro to admit it though. They're more about envy and destroying what they're not smart enough to get for themselves than the environment.
Besides, there is nothing new about HTGR’s and no commerical PBR has been built. A German pilot plant ran for 21 years and only had a 70% capacity (that is not good). Also using graphite as a moderator will sound too much like Chernobyl.
Agreed. Solutions are out there -- but we insist on doing nothing. Just lamentations about the rising costs of energy ... And solutions offered up by our fine Congress run the gamut of 'nationalizing the oil companies', waiting it out for some photovoltaic or hydrogen cell breakthrough (great if it happens -- but we shouldn't wait in case it takes a hundred years...), and riding bikes (except for the Limo liberals who can jet and drive as they please)...
Like I said, it is a sad day when France is showing us up ...
One under constuction right now, as you know. ;)
France isn’t showing us up.
South Africa is.
Think about that.
With respect to building nuclear power plants I wouldn’t be surprised if you told me that Elbonia was showing us up...
LOLOL - what’s Elbonia?
Got it - describes my garden...
A loss of coolant casualty in a PWR won't release radioactive coolant unless the core melts down. After about 35 seconds (seven half lives of nitrogen-16), filtered reactor coolant is safe. My friends used to drink it.
Nope - PBR self dampens at 2900 degrees.
You can lose all of the coolant, and nothing happens, other than the ceramic vessel gets hot.
Viva La France
I stand corrected. So what are the draw backs to the PBR? Cost? Sounds like a cheap beer?
Can’t get a permit for one in the US, until somebody builds one in the US, and proves that they are safe.
It’s a generation away from the new generation of nuclear plants that will hopefully be built now.
The EPR adds another safety train which means more qualified valves, more qualified concrete, more qualified pipe, more qualified structures, more qualified engineers to maintain it all.
The AP-1000 removes these trains, valves, people, concrete, structures. I’m partial to the AP-1000 now and a further away future involving PBRs on the thorium fuel cycle.
The EPR is what is called a gen III+ reactor. It has modernized safety features, including passive cooling, and is perfectly safe. Furthermore, the French learned another smart thing that we never did - standardized designs. It means that the safety you get from experience spreads around quickly.
And, if you have ever been in a French reactor, nuclear facility, or laboratory you would be shocked to see how incredibly clean and orderly they are.
But Americans cannot do this anymore. The French use scientists and engineers to design, build and run these things. We have to run everything (into the ground) with MBAs.
Fortunately Americans long ago gave up feeling shame because otherwise we would be hanging our heads at being shown up by the French. It isn't even a close race.
I think electricty is the least of your problems; where ya' gonna' get H20?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.