French Thumb Nose At Nuclear Power

August 5th, 2011 by Chris Keenan

With the May 2012 presidential election in France approaching, parties are beginning to take a stand and divide on the issues, with nuclear power coming out as the most pressing. According to Reuters, a poll last month showed three quarters of French people interviewed wanted to withdraw from nuclear energy, against 22 percent who backed the nuclear expansion program.

France runs almost completely on nuclear power and has always been a strong proponent of keeping nuclear power as their main energy source. However, the environmental impact and debate on the effect of nuclear power has driven the French population to look for alternative sources of electricity.

Nuclear power is controversial because it entails the use of nuclear fission reactors by civilians, technologies which were once exclusively used by the military. Nuclear power equated to nuclear weapons, not electricity used by the general population. The nuclear power debate began in the 1970s and reached its peak in the 1980s when nuclear power was at an all-time high around the globe.

When most people go to turn on their television sets or press their garage door opener, they probably aren’t thinking about the electricity or power used for such activities. But, in the 1970s, the use of power became a focus of political debates and activism when nuclear waste and the environmental impact of nuclear power became cause for concern. Critics of nuclear power believe that the threats of processing, transporting, and storing nuclear waste, as well as the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and the health risks and environmental damage from uranium are too high for nuclear power to be considered a sustainable, clean energy source.

Nuclear power provides about 6% of the world’s energy and 13–14% of the world’s electricity, with the U.S., France, and Japan together accounting for about 50% of nuclear-generated electricity (but note that Japan is now looking to phase out its use of nuclear after the Fukushima disasters). Nuclear power is the primary source of electric power in France. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out of the country’s total production of 540.6 TWh of electricity was from nuclear power (78.8%), the highest percentage in the world. As of 2002, Électricité de France, the country’s main electricity generation and distribution company, manages the country’s 59 nuclear power plants.

In 2011, Prime Minister Francois Fillon asked the Nuclear Safety Authority to carry out an ‘open and transparent’ audit of each nuclear plant because of the devastating Fukushima nuclear accidents in Japan. France is deeply dependent on nuclear power, and while 78% of the country is dependent on the power, with the May 2012 election coming, France may undergo the massive task of finding cleaner, safer alternative energy sources. The center-right UMP party supports the extension of the nuclear program, while the opposition Socialist Party has called for an end to the creation of any new nuclear reactors as well as calling for a national debate on an energy transition.

Photo Credit: TVA Web Team

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: nuclear phase out, nuclear policy, nuclear politics

About the Author

Chris Keenan is a green and general blog writer. He also maintains a personal cooking blog. Find Chris on Google

III4III

Japan is not at 50% of nuclear power. It was around 30% (and not on the whole territory, there are big difference between teh regions).
After Fukushima Japan uses only 10% of nuclear energy and this winter it will be close to zero.
M Andrus

Good for France! NOBODY can afford the risk of the most unlikely accidents OR the disposal problems of nuclear!
BlueRock

The irrationality and denial is all from those who try to suggest radiation is not highly dangerous.

* “There is no firm basis for setting a “safe” level of exposure above background for stochastic effects.” EPA

* “A preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even low doses of ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays and X-rays, are likely to pose some risk of adverse health effects….” National Academy of Sciences

P.S. I’m sure the Japanese and people from Ukraine are comforted by your internet stats.
BlueRock

> France runs almost completely on nuclear power…

That’s one of those factoids that have been repeated so many times that it’s become unchallenged ‘truth’. It’s highly debatable.

France relies heavily on electricity imports from all its neighbours – both when the weather is too hot and when it is too cold.

They also lose out when selling their electricity – Germany in a particular is happy to pay very low prices when the French are not using the inflexible GWs pumped out by their nuke fleet.

Google: ‘Does France really get 78 percent of its energy from nuclear power? Well, not really.’ (Cleantechnica: please stop pre-modding links!)
- Anonymous
  
  Thanks for the informative comment!
  
  Ignorant question: what is ‘pre-modding links’?
  - BlueRock
    
    Hey Zachary.
    
    If we add links to comments, we get ‘Your comment has been held for moderation’. I’ve seen it a few times and I don’t think those comments were ever approved.
    
    Cheers,
    
    David.
    - Anonymous
      
      Aha,.. well, I’m 99.999% sure all yours were approved, and you’ve been “white-listed” so all of yours should be coming through automatically — same with other regular, non-bot commenters. But we get a ton of spam and don’t want it taking over our comments…
      
      but will take the general suggestion into consideration.. think about it some more and maybe change course.
      
      Thank You
      
      On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Disqus <
      - BlueRock
        
        Testing – here’s the link I was referring to + one more:
        
        * Does France really get 78 percent of its energy from nuclear power? Well, not really. http://energypriorities.com/entries/2007/05/france_78_nuclear.php
        
        * Are the French running a Ponzi scheme? http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/nuclear-reality-check-chapter-2-%E2%80%93-are-the-french-running-a-ponzi-scheme/
        
        EDIT: Ignore almost everything I said!
      - Anonymous
        
        haha.
        
        not sure what you were seeing before, or maybe it was from sometime before you were white-listed, but i did that awhile back.
        
        Thanks for the links
      - BlueRock
        
        It’s just dawned on me – I was thinking about EarthTechling – not CleanTechnica. Oops. Sorry!
        
        Now I’ll go and moan at them.
      - Anonymous
        
        HAHA
Anonymous

This rational thinking about nuclear power is now becoming the dominate way of thinking.

Nuclear is just too damned dangerous.

We do not need nuclear reactors in order to have all the affordable power we need.

Time to put the “Safe, Too Cheap to Meter” myth to bed. We’ve got enough highly radioactive crap already. We need to quit making the problem greater.
Shecky Vegas

Sacred Blue!

On the other hand, it will be interesting to see how France goes about this, considering how much they depend on Nuclear energy. It won’t be as easy as the German transition, and that’s gonna be tough enough as it.

I wonder if France thought of replacing some of those standard reactors with Thorium reactors? Transitions costs are relatively minor and it would help get rid of the built-up nuclear waste. Just a thought…