4.5 Billion Years in Provence
Recent radioactive leaks in France provide a cautionary tale for America's "nuclear renaissance."
This lesser-evil argument appears to be swaying public opinion: While most polls show Americans about evenly divided on building more nuclear plants, 61 percent say they would support "increased use of nuclear power as a source of energy in order to prevent global warming." There are even signs of the arrival of "nuke chic"—most appealing, perhaps, among those too young to remember when the threat of nuclear annihilation was the planet's inconvenient truth. A 2005 Wired magazine article promoting "clean, green atomic energy" described nuclear power opponents as "the granola crowd," and asked, "Wouldn't it be a blast to barrel down the freeway in a hydrogen Hummer with a clean conscience as your copilot?" And in 2006 Elle magazine included nuclear energy in its list of the top ten "cool, new things."
Big energy companies, of course, are only too happy to ride the nuclear juggernaut, especially when it is fueled by substantial government subsidies. In a country that hasn't broken ground on a new nuclear plant since the 1979 near-meltdown at Three Mile Island, on June 30 the US government's Energy Information Administration listed 19 license applications to build commercial nuclear reactors under review or anticipated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The number is expected to exceed 30 by the end of next year. The NRC has hired 400 new staff to deal with the flood of applications, and "streamlined" the process for siting, licensing, and constructing new nuclear plants. And as the United States once again goes nuclear, it looks for inspiration to the longstanding poster child for atomic energy: France.
Suddenly, the French are very à la mode among nuclear-friendly politicians. Just five years ago, John McCain was berating France for its opposition to the Iraq War. (In February 2003, he told CBS News that the French "remind me of an aging movie actress in the 1940s who's still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it…. You cannot be a great nation unless you have a great purpose.") But his February 2008 visit to France was described by Time as "McCain's Paris Romance." It isn't just the rise of Sarkozy l'Américain that's wringing praise from former munchers of freedom fries. It’s the nukes. "The French are able to generate 80 percent of their electricity with nuclear power," McCain said after the trip. "There's no reason why America shouldn't." South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham, who accompanied McCain to France, declared: "Surely we can be as bold as the French. They know what they're doing. They have a very mature nuclear program." Even George W. Bush has pointed to France as a model for our energy future.
But events this month show that life as a nuclear-powered nation is far from la vie en rose. In mid July, the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) announced a leak from a cracked pipe at a nuclear fuel plant in the southeastern Drôme region. It said the leak was small and had not contaminated groundwater. Such was not the case, however, on July 7, when about 75 kilograms (165 pounds) of untreated liquid uranium were spilled at the Tricastin nuclear plant in the Vaucluse, north of Avignon. As the French began to repair to the countryside for their storied six-week summer vacations, those in this corner of Provence were being told not to drink the water—or swim or fish in it. One swimmer at a local lake told the Guardian that people had been ordered out of the water "as if there had been sharks in it."
The incident was given a low rating in terms of risk, but the French nuclear watchdog group CRIIRAD (Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity) reported that the amount of radioactivity released into the environment was 100 times higher than the site's limit for an entire year. The Tricastin facility was temporarily shut down, the water ban remains in effect, and the French government has begun testing the water around all 59 of its nuclear plants.
Such dramatic events were bound to make headlines, and even had some media predicting a chill in France’s long love affair with l’énergie nucléaire, which it embraced during the energy crisis of the 1970s and never let go of. But in fact, the idea of France as a model of safe, affordable nuclear energy is largely a myth, and the current situation hardly an aberration. Incidences of radioactive contamination are common in France, which has had no more success than any other country in solving the intractable problem of radioactive waste. At the Tricastin site, for example, about 770 tons of nuclear waste have been buried for the past 30 years, and four smaller incidents took place in 2007 alone, according to CRIIRAD.
Page 1 of 3 
Nuclear power is the wrong way to go. Peak Oil will soon bring about recession and with it the shopping malls will die and many factories, businesses and offices will fail. The U.S. and world will have spare electric power.
According to energy investment banker Matthew Simmons and other independent forecasters, global crude oil production is now declining, from 74 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time demand will increase 14%.
This is equivalent to a 33% drop in 7 years. No one can reverse this trend, nor can we conserve our way out of this catastrophe. Because the demand for oil is so high, it will always be higher than production; thus the depletion rate will continue until all recoverable oil is extracted.
Alternatives will not even begin to fill the gap. And most alternatives yield electric power (including nuclear), but we need liquid fuels for tractors/c ombines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment.
We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel trucks for maintenance of bridges, cleaning culverts to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables, all from far away. With the highways out, there will be no food coming in from “outside,” and without the power grid virtually nothing works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated systems.
This is documented in a free 48 page report that can be downloaded, website posted, distributed, and emailed: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
I used to live in NH, but moved to a sustainable place. Anyone interested in relocating to a nice, pretty, sustainable area with a good climate and good soil?
The socialist plutonium proliferation company Areva has a lock-hold on the US department of Energy, which has helped perpetuate the myth about the French nuclear industry. Check out "Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing in France" for the sad truth:
http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/site_down/rr04.pdfthe Without big government handouts, Areva would go belly up but politicians who perpetuate the French myth have no interest in the truth, rather only in the dollars which come along with a big deception like reprocessing.
I appreciate your unbiased reporting more than you'll ever know. Its nice to have both sides of the issue see daylight via the same trusted source, Mother Jones.
Pointing out that nuclear power has risks is not a very useful exercise unless you can show that its risks are greater than those of the alternatives. The fact that the public is more frightened by the mention of radiation than the mention of coal tar doesn't mean that the former is worse than than the latter. On the safety numbers I've seen, I'd rather build new nuclear plants than coal plants. Unfortunately, the world is going to build a lot of both of them, and that's likely even if we finally have enough sense to undertake meaningful reductions in power use.
If Sarkozy is a travelling Areva salesman, what's Greenpeace selling? Probably natural gas.
Follow the money. Natural gas currently costs about $9 per mmBTU, or $5 million per tonne-uranium-equivalent; that includes royalties on the order of half a million dollars per tonne-uranium-equivalent.
To government, therefore, the price of a tonne of the real thing, $0.23 million, is unpleasantly low.
This makes the "libertarian Cato Institute" quite uninsightful -- as one might expect -- in saying nuclear power is a creature of government. It is a prisoner of government; it expands as fast as an environmentally concerned populace can make it expand, in the teeth of government resistance.
If government footdrags nuclear expansion because of it doesn't want to lose fossil fuel income, shouldn't there be a market where this conflict of interest doesn't exist, and therefore government is happy to let nuclear power be built? What market might that be?
Hint: learn from the example of Greenpeace arctic researchers Lonnie Dupre and Eric Larsen. It will lead you to a busy business, so to speak, that is building new nuclear power plants in the USA right this moment.
Also, with regard to leaked natural uranium from the French plant, Ridgeway expresses a fair and balanced concern, if you know what I mean. This is the same stuff as is in granite countertops, a recent nine days' fuss, and also is the same stuff, and very much less in amount, as what coal burners broadcast.
For more on that uranium dispersal, Google "CEGB released about 300 kg"
The UK, Germany and France get at least 75% of the power from nuclear. The oldest nuclear plant outside of Manchester UK is still going strong after sixty years. Given a choice of nuclear or coal generated which is responsible for acid rain and killing forests, I'll take nuclear
We must not allow ourselves to be put into false dichotomies such as nuclear versus coal. Such choices are over simplistic and result in bad decisions. What we must do is pursue multiple sources of renewable energy with no or at least minimal forms of contamination for the environment. Nuclear power is a form of false hope unless the question of reprocessing can be demonstrated to be viable. Otherwise we add a form of highly lethal contamination to the earth for the 240,000 years cited in the article. Wind, solar, and other forms are what we need to pursue.
It's funny, the same people that tell us that the terrorist bogeyman is around every corner want us to build more nuclear power plants and create more nuclear waste. Two things that if you want to commit a terrorist act against a populace are great for widespread devestation. How can it be both ways?
The Cape Wind farm for the shoals of Nantucket will generate enough power for the islands and 75% of the cape. But it's being blocked at every turn. No waste. Minimal affect to the environment to build and completely green after its running. We have many green ways to go but the powers in control push for dangerous and detrimental forms of power generation. Nuclear power will cut down on CO2 production but will replace that danger with the danger of nuclear power plants and an every increasing of nuclear waste with a shelflife of 50,000 years. How greedy are we?
The argument over whether or not to build nuclear plants rather than coal or oil burning units to supplement a growing future demand seems incomplete. On that note, Mr Wirth has a valid point. Our petroleum-based economy can't sail on as it has indefinitely. Depending on one's position on the peak oil situation, you are either a pessemist or an optomist but you can't be a denier. the developed world will be in for a major reconfiguration as the oil supply runs dry. By that time safer (to operate and maintain) forms of electrical generation will likely be enough to supply the diminished needs of the country - if we make the right investments now...
Last August TVA - Tennessee Valley Authority had to shutdown three reactors due to drought and elevated summer temeperatures that raised the water temp , too high.
So, not always that Global warming proof technology,huh?
Source: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/aug/18/heat-wave-ignites-problems-in-e...
I would be interested in knowing where Clifford J. Wirth relocated to? It is obvious he has studied the Peak Oil problem and made a desision to do something about it. Thank you Clifford
I think wind farms are eyesores. And they are noisy too. And they leak hydraulic fluid. And they kill birds. And they don’t work on still days. They are dangerous to install & maintain and scary if they fall-so that limits that land use surrounding the beasts. Did you consider all this? Would you really want one in your backyard? I sure wouldn’t. I rather seriously cut back and ride my bike when I can and take the bus.
Respectfully-John
It was not to long ago in Chernobal there was a leak where it containmated many square miles and ruined peoples health. Now in France 165 pounds of liquid uranium has leaked into a popular lake. I am curious to see what the future damage while happen. Our country does not do what is good for it's citizens, but what is good for themselves ( bush & cheney).
Catastophes like Chernobyl are one-word
condemnations of nuclear power, which is a disastrous solution to the real problem of overpopulation and the overconsumption of energy.
Nuclear power is lauded as a miracle, but all miracles have fatal flaws. The waste factor alone makes nuclear power untenable. Then there's plutonium, a manmade substance that is the devil incarnate, of which one particle inhaled into the lungs guarantees cancer.
The human pig will salt the earth with
nuke plants and endless contamination.
That is our true legacy.
All alternatives to fossile fuel power have bad implications. The half-lifes of uranium radionuclides produced in nuclear power plants stretch over 25.000 years, therefore no-one can really protect nature against the threat of nuclear contamination by power plant waste on the long run. So we have only one intellligent choice as long as there is no save way to produce energy in abundance: we have to power down, reduce population and economic growth, deindustrialize and live in low energy life-styles. The era of cheap energy, industrialization and exponential growth of everything cannot be sustained by natural resources anymore.
So what? Always, we face risks.
"So what. Always we face risks", says David Martinez.
So we do. Risk-wise, as money-wise, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
But some lunches are cheaper and less risky than others. The anonymous posters here tend to be trying to chivvy us away from nuclear energy, even though it is less risky for us, because it is also less expensive. One man's saving is another, anonymous, man's loss.
Why would we want to produce expensive electricity from nuclear energy while wind, solar, and geothemal are so much cheaper with no nuclear waste to get rid of?
Even assuming we get serious about cutting back on energy use, it's hard to see how we meet the demand for power without exploiting the whole range of options. Even many corporate types are major boosters of solar, wind, and geothermal energy; but you just can't get enough power from these sources to match the need. I could only wish that nuclear could suffice as the supplement to these renewables. It won't. The industrialized world is going to build a great many coal-fired plants because there really isn't any alternative. And coal is an order of magnitude more problematic than nuclear.
"The UK, Germany and France get at least 75% of the power from nuclear. The oldest nuclear plant outside of Manchester UK is still going strong after sixty years..."
Err, no. Actually in the UK we generate about 20% of our electricity from Nuclear and I'm not aware of any nuclear power plants built here in 1947!
Installed nuclear, here and around the world, is several generations old in its technology. Rather than scaremongering on the old technology, understand the new nuclear technology, especially "pebble bed", and compare it to the alternatives in terms of output and cost. In estimating costs, exclude the licensing costs attributable to scaremongering.
In the comparison, be sure to include the requirements for capacity in hydrogen and desalinization to the requirements for electricity.
Waste is still a problem. The new technology generates slightly more waste but a less toxic waste.
In the meanwhile, avoid proximity to large granite formations or you'll absorb more rads than any nuclear plant emits, even current installed techologies. Chernobyl was indeed awful. But that experience is less a caution on all uses of nuclear and more a commentary on failures of governance in design and operation.
I am french.
I can read on my electricty bill the origine of electricity produce in France.
84% Nuclear.
6% Hydro.
4% Coal
3% Gas.
1,5 Fuel.
Herb2283 wrote:
To drill for more oil is merely postponing the day we run out. Better to drill for something we know is there, will supply all our energy needs when developed, and the process of obtaining it has already been authenticated by research; hot dry rock geothermal energy.
The heat energy beneath the surface of the earth is inexhaustible and non-polluting.
In January, 2007, a group of MIT researchers, led by Professor Jefferson Tester, published the results of a study of the feasibility of large scale hot dry rock geothermal energy production. The study was supported by a grant from the US Dept. of Energy. The results of the study were extremely positive and pointed the way to large scale development of geothermal energy production. They proved the feasibility of and established processes to exploit this resource. The report is available on the following web site.
(http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html
Steam driven turbo-generators producing electricity from an inexhaustible non-polluting supply beneath our feet instead of using expensive fresh or fossilized biomass would seem to be worthy of immediate large scale investigation and development. Hydrogen generated by electrolysis could provide portable energy for powering pollution free vehicles.
The MIT study was directed to geothermal sources , not hydro-geothermal which is why the results have so much promise. While the areas from which hydro-geothermal energy are not sufficient for the large scale energy production necessary to replace fossil fuels this is not the case for hot dry rock geothermal. Hot dry rock geothermal energy can supply all our energy needs for many millenia. The following web site on a map of the United States shows the regions available to drill for hot dry rock geothermal.
(http://pesn.com/2007/01/22/9500449_MIT_Geothermal_Report/)
Oil drilling companies have the capability to drill to the hot dry rock layers. The technology for obtaining superheated steam from geothermal wells is known. Certainly there are technical challenges to the development of hot dry rock geothermal as our primary source of energy. Optimizing the technology and cost factors will require considerable effort, energy and funding. The fact that all the energy we will ever need is under the earth’s crust and can be tapped with expanded existing technologies, however, seems to be ignored by most who are concerned about alternative energy sources. Some of the issues that must be resolved are the same as in Mr. Pickens wind energy proposal For example the electrical distribution grids must be altered to accommodate the siting of the power generating facilities. Since the state of Texas has regions of hot dry rock it might be wise to consider how these could be exploited concurrent with wind farms to reduce distribution costs. Initial costs will be high though probably not too much more than drilling for oil, which is a dead end.
Eventually, not only fossil fuels but uranium ores will be exhausted. Biofuels as a major supplier of energy require too much energy to grow and process to be considered. While we still have a source of energy to support the development it would logical to use it to establish the only certain alternative energy source. The sooner we develop reliable and safe alternate sources the less painful will be the transition. Please Google “geothermal” to explore other important projects.
Herb2283,Retired Electrical Engineer
Uranium has to become scarce eventually, but the nice thing about it is, this won't be for many generations.
Currently, even though its price has dropped from a little over $3 per barrel-equivalent down to about $2, prospectors have been finding it ten times quicker than the world's nuclear plants have been burning it.
Geothermal power generation can be seen to have some present reality in the graph at http://tinyurl.com/6eqm3j .
I can only praise the article, nuclear energy is not the safest option. And a good deal of the side effect are hidden under the carpet.
As a side note, may I point to some of the own US study on long term storage http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/07/03/warning-future-nu... (I don't have the official link).
As a side note, may I precise to those who still think AREVA is a socialist compagny that its current "CEO" Lauvergeon(closest notion here) has been managing partner of Lazard (not quite a socialist compagny), and then part of the group's executive committee. Not eaxctly a role model for Marx or Lenin...
Although it is state funded, I could also add that I'd rather prefer to have a public watchdog for nuclear power compagny handling hazardous material rather than, say, a Enron style compagny which has been so efficient at handling california energy market.
Excellent article. No no one seems to dare discuss the problem of nuclear waste for which no one has an answer and now you raise the question about how safe the actual operation of the vaunted French plants really are.
Nuclear waste is certainly not pleasant stuff, but the world routinely deals with dangerous materials and the volume of waste produced by nuclear plants is actually rather small by industrial standards. The supposed difficulty of dealing with nuclear waste is partly a function of the unrealistic standard we set up. Nobody knows how to engineer anything to work for 10,000 years, but so long as a repository is monitored, it doesn't have to work for 10,000 years. If a problem develops, you deal with it. Meanwhile, does anybody know of a higher or better use for ultra-dry desert regions of Nevada?
It is a myth that solar and wind cannot supply many of the stationery (and some mobile) needs of developed countries - though perhaps not at the ridiculous level they are presently used at.
Europe is seriously investigating a project to put solar thermal power in the Sahara desert, the most sunny place on earth, which will provide all power for Europe. They just have to get the DC power across the sea. In the U.S. big energy companies are buying up large chunks of desert. Guess why? Same thing, thermal solar.
Wind is being fought both politically and economically, as other posters have pointed out, by the same industry politicians who are 'invested' in coal/nuclear/oil.
Which is why tax credits to both were recently reduced. Tell us the ruling class doesn't have a large investment in Nuclear, no matter how potentially dangerous it is, nor how clean the alternative is.
Would Herb be so kind as to post the references to geothermal in hypertext. Writingthe sites down and entering them is difficult for me and perhaps others,who are not web-tech sufficient.
These comments show an amazing mixture of misinformation, partial facts, and spin.
Renewable energy's of course the optimal plan, but practically, as in today, is it really better to continue building more coal-fired plants sending millions of tons of particulates and gases into the atmosphere? Burying waste in salt mines is at least a concentration of the negative products and they don't have global impact.
If it's price/megawatt is comparable to gas turbines, coal, hydro, and other alternatives, it'll be built.
Making existing hydro plants ridiculously expensive to maintain with inane demands from environmentalists isn't helping.
FYI, it is easy for citizeb whom country gots oil fields and using massively oil for generating its energy to say that nuclear power is bad and that you must get rid of it. But France got no oil fields (very very small ones), hydro power plants (dams, falls, tide, etc) are almost at its maximum (only the loire river is left but kept as "protected area"). Windmill are blooming every where in the countryside... but it will take time, and the ecological impact is still unclear (1 windmill is ok, but a 100 windmills field next door ?).
Low energy rates are on every goods, most people use low consumption bulb, unplug lights and products when not used, etc.
But at the end, how do you produce the energy you need without oil and without nuclear ! Today, you need at least one of those two (and maybe both)... and I do think this will be the same for the next 50 years to come until fuel can be buy (uranium or oil).
There are plenty of good projects for alternative, but I still see no solution for today (or even tomorrow).
We need solutions now !
A better use for dry dessert regions? Solar panels for sure. Or maybe windmills, if they get enough wind. Or leave them alone for the few hardy creatures that have evolved to survive in those hostile environments.
A Geiger Counter reading reveals
radiation.
Nothing will contain nuclear waste. It will
continue to generate heat and has leaked
out in the first 63 years of the atomic age.
The first atom bomb "test" was in 1945.
More than 528 atmospheric tests have
been exploded. No one is immune.
Global warming is being used as an excuse
for many agendas. The longest lived polluting
agent is nuclear power. Comparing mortality
will not make you less dead! Don't be fooled
again!
The aim of nuclear power is to make plutonium
239 for atom bombs and create the BIG STICK
of political might. Electricity is made from the
heat which makes steam and turns the electric
turbines. The trick is to make you pay for your
own doomsday!
Nuclear terms are designed to confuse the
public mind. Nuclear waste...is not waste!
Spent fuel....is not spent, but actually more
radioactive coming out than going in as fresh
fuel. Depleted uranium ordinance is illegal
under the Geneva Convention and etc.
There is 'off the shelf' science that can reduce
plutonium 239 to zero radioactivity and produce
electricity from the heat. In 1979, after the Three
Mile Island accident, Dr. Radha R. Roy invented
the Roy Process for neutralizing nuclear waste .
It became an AP world wide news story.
Then president Ronald Reagan signed, "The 1982
Nuclear Waste Policy Act" which made geologic
isolation federal law! This put alternatives like
cost effective photon transmutation in limbo.
All one can do now is not build any more nuclear
power reactors, and photon transmute to zero
the so-called nuclear waste. This would both
neutralize the waste and create electricity from
the heat.
Albert Einstein once said, "Nuclear power is one
hell of a way to boil water".
----------------------------------------------------------------
NEW VIDEO - YouTube - The Roy Process
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v7030VAeLA
Video - Would you like some nuclear waste with your champagne?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbRP-QfeI-8&feature=related
Dennis F. Nester said:
Albert Einstein once said, "Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil water".
Why would he have said that? Albert Einstein was dead two and a half years before the first full-scale atomic electric power plant went critical.
Sorry, but your comment is full of errors and outright lies, most of them just as ridiculous as your Einstein "quote."
Brian,
Dr. Oppenheimer commented on the first
atom bomb "test", "I have become death,
the shatterer of worlds", prophetic
speech, he knew then were atom bombs
would lead, so did Einstein who worked
the rest of his life against nuclear
power.
----
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NucNews/message/28457
Twelve Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Energy
and Support a Green Energy Future
Posted by Russell Lowes on March 16, 2008
http://arizona.typepad.com/safeenergyanalyst/accidents_drills_fines/inde...
tiffany jewelry
of tiffany jewelry on ebay are cheaper than tiffany jewellery outlet store, why is that?
You will find the newest tiffany jewelry on sale fashion release on their official website.
I am planning to give my wife a big surprise with tiffany and co as a birthday gift, but I don’t know which one to choose, any ideas?
We are providing all kinds
-
tagged as:
- result
We are providing all kinds of louis vuitton handbags, wallets and purses in ourgucci Online Store, all items of which have the most popular styles and are the newest and at discounted prices.
We also provide helpful shopping guide tips for you to choose and compare our bags and other accessories. Get your sale of replica handbags today and you will never be disappointed with it.
Welcome to our company, our
Welcome to our company, our company Huayi Trade Co.,LTD are good at selling the top quality designer bags (Balenciaga ,Chanel , Chloe' ,Christian Dior ,Dolce&Gabbana , Fendi , Gucci , Hermes , Galliera GM ,Miu Miu , Prada ), they are mirror image bags which are identical to the real onesLouis Vuitton Galliera GM . Our company locates inthe leather town in China, Speedy 25since 2003 we did this business we have won great trust and popularity from our customers from all over the world. We areexpanding our business, any inquiry for wholesale business is warmly welcome, Louis Vuitton Speedy 25just contact us, you can get our prompt reply.We have enlish speaking representative to answer phone call, or we can call you if convenient for you.
