Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

France includes nuclear power exit among options (three quarters of French want full exit)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-11 12:29 PM
Original message
France includes nuclear power exit among options (three quarters of French want full exit)
Edited on Fri Jul-08-11 12:31 PM by kristopher
France includes nuclear power exit among options
Fri Jul 8, 2011 8:42am EDT

PARIS, July 8 (Reuters) - France raised the possibility for the first time of pulling out of nuclear power although its energy minister stressed on Friday that this was just one of many scenarios, not the one favoured by the government.

...France's deep dependence on nuclear makes a dramatic volte-face a massive task, with a May 2012 presidential election approaching the government may be tempted to suggest that it is considering a possible pullout.

A poll last month showed three quarters of the French people interviewed wanted to withdraw from nuclear energy, against 22 percent who back the nuclear expansion programme.

While the centre-right UMP party mostly supports the extension of the nuclear programme, the opposition Socialist Party has called for a moratorium on new reactors and promised a national debate on energy transition if elected in 2012...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/08/france-nuclear-idUSLDE7670UN20110708

This pretty well pops the myth that French love nuclear power, doesn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-11 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. k&r nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-11 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. Sheep are so easily led...
Baa. Baa. Please lead me by the nose. I need someone to tell me what to fear, and what to believe in...

:sarcasm: <==for the seriously sarcasm impaired
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-11 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. That's how they ended up locked into a type of infrastructure they don't want
...but can't afford to get rid of.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-11 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Like disgustingly polluting coal power plants and fracking for natural gas?
If that is what you meant then I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-11 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Yes, same situation, different toxins and dangers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-11 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Phase out Uranium, replace with Thorium plants 30%, Renewables with storage 70%
We have less than a 100 year supply of Uranium at *present* usage levels, most likely less than 70 years worth of Uranium. Of course the bought-and-paid-for studies say that "BIG" supplies are going to be found. Uh-huh. I believe that alright. But why even bother? We have a 1000 year supply of Thorium.

We have already hit Peak Oil - notice how oil/gas prices fluctuate but the median is always going up. And up. And up. We need to say goodbye to Oil before it either bankrupts us or destroys all of our scenic places (aka recent Exxon pipeline leaking disaster). If we weren't hooked on Oil, do you honestly believe that we'd be fighting 4 oil wars (or is it 5 by now)?

Coal and Fracking Natural Gas... do I really need to say anything? The double-whammy environmental disasters. Coal kills the planet slowly and Natural Gas pollutes our ground water (go to youtube and search for sink on fire or fire in sink to see the wonders that Natural Gas have brought us).

We need to begin a program to replace the dirty energy sources with zero-carbon energy, something on the order of the Moon Landing. That is how important this goal should be to our nation. We all need to understand that it is a matter of national security and our national survival.

I suggest a two-pronged effort, simultaneously building as much Solar PV, Solar Thermal, Wind, Geothermal power, Tidal power and wave power each year as we can while also building the latest generation (Gen IV) Thorium energy plants such as the LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) to replace the oldest or least safe nuclear power plants until all Uranium plants are safely shut down and replaced with Thorium energy plants.

We also need to end the days of being stupid about energy waste. A standard incandescent bulb wastes 85% of the energy that comes out of the light socket in the form of unwanted heat. Replacing energy wasters like that is just one example of being smarter about the energy we use. We will soon begin replacing the incandescent bulbs with LED light bulbs that use only 15% of the energy of an incandescent bulb rated for the same light output. All of the "big players" in light bulb manufacturing are working on high quality LED bulbs that are a screw in replacement for a regular or halogen bulb, turns on immediately, puts out exactly the same color of light. The thing is... the LED bulb will last for 20 years or more.

Electric cars use only 20% of the energy that a gasoline car does -- and instead of 60% to 70% of the money going to foreign countries, some of which fund terrorists, with electric cars all the money you spend (a little higher electric bill) will stay right here in THIS country, building our economy instead of building the economies of people who hate us and want to kill us. Electric cars = SMART. Funding terrorists by driving a gasoline or diesel car = (you get the idea).

There are a thousand different ways that we waste energy and we need to reduce that waste as much as we can. Why? That will reduce the amount of renewable energy plants we have to build, making the goal of 100% renewables that much easier (and less costly) to attain.

Once we have reached the point where 30% of our energy comes from Thorium energy plants (LFTR) and 70% comes from renewable energy sources, then we will continue building more solar plants, wind, etc., until we no longer need the Thorium plants either, we can get 100% of our energy from renewables.

We can do this. Here is the total world energy usage, including Oil, Coal, Electricity, biomass, etc., all energy sources:
In 2008, total world energy consumption was 474 exajoules (474×1018 J=132,000 TWh). This is equivalent to an average annual power consumption rate of 15 terawatts (1.504×1013 W) <1>

The potential for renewable energy is: solar energy 1600 EJ (444,000 TWh), wind power 600 EJ (167,000 TWh), geothermal energy 500 EJ (139,000 TWh), biomass 250 EJ (70,000 TWh), hydropower 50 EJ (14,000 TWh) and ocean energy 1 EJ (280 TWh).<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage
  • Wind power can power the world all by itself today
  • Geothermal energy can power the world as well but any increase in energy usage will outstrip its potential
  • Biomass comes close to 50% of the total energy needed
  • Solar can power the world 4 times over
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-11 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. We don't need nuclear. Period.
We don't need nuclear reactors using the once through uranium fuel cycle.

We don't need plutonium breeder reactors.

We don't need thorium breeder reactors.

We don't need small modular nuclear reactors.

We don't need to build cities on the oceans.

We don't need to arm every country in the world with nuclear weapons to offset the risk of nuclear proliferation from nuclear power

We don't need nuclear.

Period.

It is not necessary.

It isn't desired.

No one wants it.

People hate it.

People want us to stop using it.

People want us to use renewables.

Renewables are better in every respect.

Renewables are better in every respect.

Renewables are better in every respect.

We don't need nuclear.

Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpoonFed Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-11 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Please state your reply in the form of a Haiku, pls. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-11 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Your post is unclear as to your opinion on a couple of things
:hi:

You seem to want to end nuclear power now. The fossil fuels industries will cheer you as their saint and savior.

When do you plan to end Natural Gas?

When do you plan to end Coal?

When do you plan to end Oil (and gasoline and diesel)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-11 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. France is phasing out nuclear energy whether they know it or not
Peak generation was around 2006:


2008: French environment minister said 2nd EPR would be "marginal" for electricity production
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=299879&mesg_id=300034

April 2011: French Nuclear Safety Authority cannot rule out moratorium on Flamanville reactor
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x285400

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
11. French nuclear power lobbyists used Fukushima smear campaign to promote own businesses
French nuclear power lobbyists used Fukushima smear campaign to promote own businesses

In this June 1, 2011 file photo released by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), workers inspect equipment inside the cesium absorption tower, part of the radioactive water processing facilities at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant in Okuma, Fukushima Prefecture. (AP Photo/TEPCO)

Less than a month after the outbreak of the Fukushima nuclear crisis, illustrated brochures elaborating on the process leading up to the hydrogen explosions at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant were distributed to members of the U.S. Congress and government officials in Washington.

The color-print, A-4 size brochures, later to be called the "Fukushima Files," were handed out by lobbyists from France's nuclear power giant Areva SA in early April.

The 33-page brochure underscored that General Electric Co. (GE)'s Mark I containment system was employed at the Fukushima plant, while containing speculation and describing fuel melting in the spent fuel storage pool, which never took place. On its last page, the brochure concluded that Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) apparently had not released most of the information it held.

The leaflet sent shockwaves around Tokyo and Washington, as well as GE officials, who were busy responding to the nuclear crisis. Areva lobbyists stressed that the accident was peculiar to Japan when they handed out the leaflets, hinting that similar accidents would never occur with nuclear plant systems provided by Areva. It was obvious to the recipients of the brochures that they were part of Areva's maneuvering to quash its competitors in the nuclear power business.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy's visit to Japan...

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110704p2a00m0na015000c.html

A consensus is emerging, and it isn't favorable to nuclear power...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC