# Anything we can learn from the French about nuclear power? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 11, 2008, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639 "2008-08-11T18:35:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2008, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/1 "2008-08-11T18:35:23Z")
According to _Newsweek_, the French get 76.8% of their power from nuclear energy. The U.S. gets just 19.4% from it. Given our energy needs, is there anything we can learn from France? What have they done right, or wrong, in using nuclear power so much? ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2008, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/2 "2008-08-11T18:59:05Z")
They might have something to teach us about building reactors in a fashion that won’t break the bank…but thats more along the organizational/permit/review process/damnit this thing WILL get built here! stuff. As far as engineering/technical prowess, my WAG is they are roughly in par with us (or vise versa). Though their percentage is much higher than ours, they are a significantly smaller country, so I’d bet the number of actual reactors are comparable. One interestng tidbit I seem to recall is that in the French Nuclear Industry, most of the folks working at a reactor (short of the janitor) are highly trained in the nuclear sciences. As opposed to the US, where a much higher fraction of nuke workers are grunt level techs by comparision (no offense intended!). When the cost of salary for the workers at a nuclear site is virtually in the noise compared to all the other costs, that certainly seems like a more prudent approach than hiring billy bob who welds good. All this impression comes from dabbling in Nuclear Sciences Grad program back in the day. We had lots of French exhange students studying nuke science in the USA. If I’d had half a brain back then, I could have scored some hot, smart, hard working French nuclear science babes (Doohhhhh!). One of my favorite tibits from that era was an older (for graduate work, nearly 40) french student…he said even the French don’t like the French. my two francs Blll ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2008, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/3 "2008-08-11T19:25:46Z")
[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir] According to _Newsweek_, the French get 76.8% of their power from nuclear energy. The U.S. gets just 19.4% from it. Given our energy needs, is there anything we can learn from France? What have they done right, or wrong, in using nuclear power so much? [/QUOTE] The numbers may be misleading… They have 1/5th the population we do (65million v. 300 million), smooshed into an area 1/14th ours(260k square miles v. 3,794k square miles). France has 59 plants, the USA has 104 plants. They get more peeps per plant (840k to our 550k\*), but a tighter pop density helps them there. I dunno if we could afford to build another 315 plants, economically or politically speaking… \*Math: France: 65million \* 76% coverage divided by 59 plants = 837,288 per plant. USA: 300million \* 19% coverage divided by 104 plants = 548,076. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2008, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/4 "2008-08-11T19:38:09Z")
What it will take is a legislative moratorium on lawsuits. There needs to be something resembling a standardized approval process for the various technologies, wind, coal, nuclear etc… Once you have a basic design certified it should expedite the construction process. The same applies to lawsuits regarding environmental issues. It’s to the point that anyone who wants to stop a commercial project can find an endangered fly that only lives in the land in question. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2008, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/5 "2008-08-11T19:45:36Z")
We can learn how not to shoot our mouths off before a swimming competition… 😉 From the nuclear perspective, I doubt they could teach us much about getting the things through our system. They have a completely different political situation there than we have here. They don’t seem to be as swayed by their anti-nuke crowd and aren’t as concerned with using public funds to help boost their nuclear industry as we have been. From the engineering side there is probably a lot they can help us RE-learn about the practical side of modern reactor design. I’m not sure how much more advanced (if at all) their current reactor designs are compared to ours…maybe someone who knows about that stuff will wander in. I think our designs are a bit dated since we haven’t really kept up on the R&D side of new reactor design, so the French probably would have an edge there, as well as with actual building techniques. -XT ---
**Author:** ![bannerrefugee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c68b51/32.png) [@bannerrefugee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bannerrefugee)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2008, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/6 "2008-08-11T19:56:25Z")
[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir] According to _Newsweek_, the French get 76.8% of their power from nuclear energy. The U.S. gets just 19.4% from it. Given our energy needs, is there anything we can learn from France? What have they done right, or wrong, in using nuclear power so much? [/QUOTE] They just had two accidents. The US public must accept that we will have our own. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2008, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/7 "2008-08-11T19:57:15Z")
To echo what’s been said, the French decided to use a standardized design (based upon the US developed Westinghouse reactors). They then used the power of a central government to build the things without those lawsuits delays. In the USA, we have 10 million environmental groups, who can mire a new power plant in litigation-look at the Federal Nuclear Waste depository (Nevada). The thing is built (cost $ billions), but we can’t use it-the government’s own lawyers have blocked it. Eventually, the legal system will destroy this country. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2008, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/8 "2008-08-11T20:25:57Z")
We can learn that nuclear can be your go to technology when you have a government that owns and builds the plants but that it has a hard time competing on any level playing field. Hard to imagine that I’m agreeing with the Cato Institute here - but [I am.](http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8792) > [@](#): > > The only reason investors are interested: government handouts. Absent those subsidies, investor interest would be zero. > > A cold-blooded examination of the industry’s numbers bears this out. Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf concludes that the total cost of juice from a new nuclear plant today is 4.31 cents per kilowatt-hour. That’s far more than electricity from a conventional coal-fired plant (3.53 cents) or “clean coal” plant (3.55 cents). When he takes away everyone’s tax subsidies, however, Metcalf finds that nuclear power is even less competitive (5.94 cents per kwh versus 3.79 cents and 4.37 cents, respectively). > > Nuclear energy investments are riskier than investments in coal- or gas-fired electricity. High upfront costs and long construction times mean investors have to wait years to get their money back. The problem here is not just the cost per watt, several times that of a gas plant, but the fact that nuclear plants are big. Result: The upfront capital investment can be 10 to 15 times as great as for a small gas-fired turbine. … > > … How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don’t. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors. > > The only nuclear plant built in a liberalized-energy economy in the last decade was one ordered in Finland in 2004. The Finnish plant was built on 60-year purchase contracts signed by electricity buyers, by a firm (the French Areva) that scarcely seems to be making good money on the deal. Without a centralized planning system in which the government is willing to swallow the cost, or massive subsidies in the form of loan guarantees, nuclear is not competitive - and that is now, while high uranium is readily available, not in a world in which the high grade has already been exploited and fuel cost increase as uranium becomes more costly (in dollars, in environmental damage, and in carbon footprint) to exploit. I have no problem with nuclear but let it compete on equal footing without subsidies. Charge for the carbon (tax or cap/trade … whatever) and let the best technology win. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2008, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/9 "2008-08-11T22:17:01Z")
Doesn’t France go even a step further in cost because they recycle a large amount of their fuel? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2008, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/10 "2008-08-11T22:22:56Z")
[QUOTE=DSeid] I have no problem with nuclear but let it compete on equal footing without subsidies. [/QUOTE] But, you just said it can’t. Why should that rule it out as an option? We can be fairly certain the global supply of uranium will last longer than the global supply of petroleum – an obviously decisive factor, but one which has no short-term effect on the market forces. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/11 "2008-08-12T02:40:57Z")
[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/18/europe/leak.php](http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/18/europe/leak.php) Do not believe it is without risks. TThe danger is part of the calculation. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/12 "2008-08-12T04:41:15Z")
How many deaths gonzo? Care to hazard a guess? How about we compare it to other power generation technologies? -XT ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/13 "2008-08-12T05:17:25Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] But, you just said it can’t. Why should that rule it out as an option? We can be fairly certain the global supply of uranium will last longer than the global supply of petroleum – an obviously decisive factor, but one which has no short-term effect on the market forces. [/QUOTE] If it can’t then it loses, as it should. Remember I am allowing for the competition to include a cost for life cycle carbon production (either taxed directly or via cap and trade). Maybe it will be the best in certain locations. In others it will be wind, in some solar, in some coal co-fired with biomass, and in others tidal or who knows. Petroleum is not the major competition for power production. Is there any reason to not just align the incentives and let the market sort it out as is most efficient for each individual circumstance? If it cannot produce power at a competitive cost without subsidies even in a world in which the cost of the carbon is factored in for all of the competition, then it should not be a preferred technology. Oh, there is an ample global uranium supply, just not an ample high grade uranium supply. Once you start harvesting the low grade ores your carbon production (and pollution and other environmental degradation) from mining and processing goes up, way up. ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/14 "2008-08-12T12:35:09Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by_ **DSeid:** > Is there any reason to not just align the incentives and let the market sort it out as is most efficient for each individual circumstance? Yes, there are reasons. First off - as already acknowledged - there may be longer term issues such as global warming the market is not addressing (hence the carbon tax/trading). Secondly, countries may well have strategic reasons for subsidising a particular form of energy production. The French government did not support/subsidise the building of nuclear power stations just because they liked the name. France is an energy poor country and they did it on a clear judgement that the alternative was to be dependent on foreign supplies. Other countries have other drivers. Germany boasts of its green commitment shown in the proportion of power produced by renewables (~15% in 2007), a proportion inflated by forcing the electricity companies (and hence the consumers) to subsidise renewable power by buying it from anyone who produces it at inflated prices. What they do not often mention is the amount the German taxpayer forks out to subsidise coal fired electricity production. There are now plans to phase this out - eventually! - but it is going to run to billions of euros a year for several years to come. From the German point of view this makes sense, they have a lot of coal and a lot of people employed mining it. ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/15 "2008-08-12T12:50:14Z")
The issue about France being more densely-populated seems to me to be a red herring. The US distributes its power somehow; the question is how is it generated at the source? Does it make a difference to distributing power over large areas if the power source is a nuclear reactor or a coal-fired plant? [QUOTE=DSeid] Charge for the carbon (tax or cap/trade … whatever) and let the best technology win. [/QUOTE] This is exactly it. The Cato Institute report, AFAICT, ignores the cost of externalities, which are costs that real people actually bear as the result of burning fossil fuels. It would be interesting to see how much it actually (read: including externalities like pollution) costs to produce electricity via coal. But Cato didn’t bother to do that calculation. Big surprise. > [@gonzomax](#): > > Do not believe it is without risks. TThe danger is part of the calculation. [According to the WHO,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution#Health_effects) 2.4 million deaths annually can be attributed to air pollution. There is also a cost to burning fossil fuels, but people (irrationally) take this cost for granted. ETA: this is a world-wide number, not a figure for the US alone. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/16 "2008-08-12T19:48:18Z")
Thanks, everybody. Some fascinating info (from **DSeid** especially). ---
**Author:** ![bannerrefugee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c68b51/32.png) [@bannerrefugee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bannerrefugee)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/17 "2008-08-12T21:44:58Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] How many deaths gonzo? Care to hazard a guess? How about we compare it to other power generation technologies? -XT [/QUOTE] Convince the public nuclear power is safer. Otherwise it doesn’t matter if it is. Accident like those in France don’t help. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/18 "2008-08-12T22:03:49Z")
The number of deaths due to coal power is just a guess. But the impact on those living near a plant is unmistakable. They do not have to be as dirty as they are. The companies fight to keep from cleaning up the mess they make… The nukes are extremely over priced. They do not compete without getting huge tax breaks. But my concern is how they fight regulation through the entire process. They get caught cheating on construction and they fight any and all regulation. Want nukes. Good . I want them heavily regulated. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/19 "2008-08-12T22:05:41Z")
[QUOTE=bannerrefugee] Convince the public nuclear power is safer. Otherwise it doesn’t matter if it is. [/QUOTE] Good luck with that. After literally decades of anti-nuke propaganda the public is pretty much immune from the facts…or the urban legend type data they are using is so ingrained that it would be a massive uphill struggle. Nuclear power IS safer than any other form of mass power out there, on just about any level you care to measure it on. Hell, I bet more people were harmed installing wind power turbines last year than in nuclear power accidents. > [@](#): > > Accident like those in France don’t help Why? Again…how many deaths? How many injuries? Compared to any other power generation method that scales up to the same level, what are the figures for deaths and injuries? In a real apples to apples comparison including accidents ‘like those in France’, how does nuclear power stack up? -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639/20 "2008-08-12T22:19:16Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] The number of deaths due to coal power is just a guess. [/QUOTE] Well…there are various estimates, to be sure. I’ve seen figures ranging from 5-10k deaths world wide (3k in China annually alone) just for the mining of coal…which is only one small aspect of power production using coal. Then there are the deaths through various other nasty means, including air pollution and respiratory ailments. Not to mention that coal plants have accidents to of course… > [@](#): > > But the impact on those living near a plant is unmistakable. Quite true…the impact being nearly nothing. Good point gonzo! > [@](#): > > The companies fight to keep from cleaning up the mess they make. Interesting…looks to me, in the US at least, that it’s the eco-nut cases and anti-nuke whack jobs who are blocking every move to try and clean things up and safely (or at least centrally) store the waste. > [@](#): > > The nukes are extremely over priced. They do not compete without getting huge tax breaks. Heh…hehehhehehehheeh! BWAHAHAHHAHA! Too funny. The irony…it burns! I suppose you are right. I mean, the eco-fascists and anti-nuke crowd puts up ever barrier they can, files lawsuit after lawsuit and makes it impossible (not nearly impossible, not sort of impossible, but impossible) to even BUILD a nuclear power plant in the US due to all the additional cost and time it would take…and then comes back and goes ‘Well, you see! Nuclear power costs to much! Told ya, told yah, nanny nanny boo boo!’ > [@](#): > > But my concern is how they fight regulation through the entire process. They get caught cheating on construction and they fight any and all regulation. Want nukes. Good . I want them heavily regulated. What planet do you live on? Or, at least, what country do you live in? If you are in the US, what the hell are you talking about?? Do you know how many new nuclear plants have been built in the US in the last decade (that these evil corporations have supposedly built by getting around all this lack of regulation stuff)?? Answer: Zero. -XT [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-we-can-learn-from-the-french-about-nuclear-power/459639.md?page=2)