McCain's French kiss

Financial Post ^ | May 13, 2008 | Lawrence Solomon

[Delacon]

The Republican nominee backed nuclear this week, but the U.S. shouldn't try to imitate the French disaster

                                    By Lawrence Solomon
"If France can produce 80% of its electricity with nuclear power, why can’t we?,” asks U.S. presidential candidate John McCain. Nuclear power is a cornerstone of Senator McCain’s plan to combat climate change, which he is unveiling this week.
McCain thinks he is asking a simple rhetorical question. As it turns out, he is not. His question is technical, with an answer that will surprise him and most Americans. Nuclear reactors cannot possibly meet 80% of America’s power needs — or those of any country whose power market dominates its region — because of limitations in nuclear technology. McCain needs to find another miracle energy solution, or abandon his vow to drastically cut back carbon dioxide emissions.
Unlike other forms of power generation, nuclear reactors are designed to run flat-out, 24/7 — they can’t crank up their output at times of high demand or ease up when demand slows. This limitation generally consigns nuclear power to meeting a power system’s minimum power needs — the amount of power needed in the dead of night, when most industry and most people are asleep, and the value of power is low. At other times of the day and night, when power demands rise and the price of power is high, society calls on the more flexible forms of generation — coal, gas, oil and hydro-electricity among them — to meet its additional higher-value needs.
If a country produces more nuclear power than it needs in the dead of night, it must export that low-value, off-peak power. This is what France does. It sells its nuclear surplus to its European Union neighbours, a market of 700 million people. That large market — more than 10 times France’s population — is able to soak up most of France’s surplus off-peak power.
The U.S. is not surrounded, as is France, by far more populous neighbours. Just the opposite: The U.S. dominates the North American market. If 80% of U.S. needs were met by nuclear reactors, as Senator McCain desires, America’s off-peak surplus would have no market, even if the power were given away. Countries highly reliant on nuclear power, in effect, are in turn reliant on having large non-nuclear-reliant countries as neighbours. If France’s neighbours had power systems dominated by nuclear power, they too would be trying to export off-peak power and France would have no one to whom it could offload its surplus power. In fact, even with the mammoth EU market to tap into, France must shut down some of its reactors some weekends because no one can use its surplus. In effect, France can’t even give the stuff away.
Not only does France export vast quantities of its low-value power (it is the EU’s biggest exporter by far), France meanwhile must import high-value peak power from its neighbours. This arrangement is so financially ruinous that France in 2006 decided to resurrect its obsolete oil-fired power stations, one of which dates back to 1968.
France’s nuclear program sprung not from business needs but from foreign policy goals. Immediately after the Second World War, France’s President, Charles de Gaulle, decided to develop nuclear weapons, to make France independent of either the U.S. or the USSR. This foreign policy goal spawned a commercial nuclear industry, but a small one — France’s nuclear plants could not compete with other forms of generation, and produced but 8% of France’s power until 1973.
Then came the OPEC oil crisis and panic. Sensing that French sovereignty was at stake, the country decided to replace oil with electricity and to generate that electricity with nuclear. By 1974, three mammoth nuclear plants were begun and by 1977, another five. Without regulatory hurdles to clear and with cut-rate financing and a host of other subsidies from Euratom, the EU’s nuclear subsidy agency, France’s power system was soon transformed. By 1979, France’s frenzied building program had nuclear power meeting 20% of France’s power generation. By 1983 the figure was about 50% and by 1990 about 75% and growing.
Despite the subsidies, the overbuilding effectively bankrupted Electricite de France (EdF), the French power company. To dispose of its overcapacity and stay afloat, EdF feverishly exported its surplus power to its neighbours, even laying a cable under the English Channel to become a major supplier to the UK. At great expense, French homes were converted to inefficient electric home heating. And EdF offered cut-rate power to keep and attract energy-intensive industries — Pechiney, the aluminum supplier, obtained power at half of EdF’s cost of production, and soon EdF was providing similar terms to Exxon Chemicals and Allied Signal.
These measures helped but not enough — in 1989, EdF ran a loss of four billion French francs, a sum its president termed “catastrophic.” The company had a 800-billion-franc debt, old reactors that faced expensive decommissioning, and unresolved waste disposal costs. To keep lower-cost competitors out of the country, France also reneged on an EU-wide agreement to open borders up to electricity competition.
France’s nuclear program, in short, is an economic disaster, and a political one too — 61% of the French public favours a phase-out of nuclear energy.
“Is France a more secure, advanced and innovative country than we are?,” McCain also asked. “I need no answer to that rhetorical question. I know my country well enough to know otherwise.”
But McCain does not know France well enough to know why nuclear power’s negative record over there says nothing positive about what it can do for people over here, on this side of the Atlantic.

                                                            Financial Post
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud. E-mail: LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com. Fourth in a series.

[Delacon]

“I agree that conservatives seem to be all pro oil and discount any other kind of power.”

I totally disagree with that statement. I’d say that conservatives seem to be anti-change and are skeptical of any sceem to transition to a reliance on any other kind of power. I find our anti-change skepticalism to be our most redeeming quality. Its the reason we are just barely keeping the global warming alarmists at bay. If we are going to move away from oil, these issues about the viability of alternative fuels(to oil) will have to be hashed out SLOWLY AND METHODICLY. I’ve learned a lot since I posted this thread btw.

[HwyChile]

“The power in a nuclear reactor is not wasted by running it at a reduced power level. And as I said in post 28, it’s fairly easy to change power level in a General Electric reactor.”

Well, I should have qualified my statements to “if what the article says is true” (that it has to be run wide open). I saw posts that said it could be throttled back, and I don’t dispute that. I was just using the so called facts in the article and good old logic to see the answer is that you have to have the correct mix of nuclear power and flexible power and there is no problem. France did not do that. Of course, you solution would solve the problem too (they don’t have to run wide open).

[CitizenUSA]

Batteries are just one of many technological solutions. Here are others: high-mass flywheels (kinetic energy), compressed gas (internal energy), elevated fluid reservoirs (potential energy). All can be used to store excess energy from nukes during non-peak hours. These technologies are already in use, but it would take a great deal of further analysis to determine the best solution(s) for a particular energy need. Again, that is exactly why the government needs to get out of the energy business. They are only going to muck it up! The free market is best at deciding the most economical way to deliver the greatest amount of energy at the least possible cost to the greatest number of people. That’s why blanket statements like, “nuclear is bad” or “solar is good” are nonsensical.

[Don Corleone]

If France can produce 80% of its electricity with nuclear power, why can’t we?

Can't get a building permit...that's why!

[HwyChile]

I think the left likes to paint conservatives as resistant to change. However, as a conservative, I don't feel that way as long as the change is a good thing and based on very sound logic.

The liberals have been preaching alternative energy based off passion, whether the alternate energy is feasible (cost/benefit) or not. For example, we are not going to provide all of our power off windmills like the liberals think. It is not feasible. Many conservatives know this and have taken a pro-oil, disregard the liberal pipe dream alternate energy sources, and for good reason as stated above. However, as fossil fuels become more expensive, alternate energy becomes more feasible, and thus the old reflex against alternate energy is no longer appropriate, if that makes sense.

[DoughtyOne]

I’ve noticed something very strange going on. Every single energy proposal that doesn’t address oil as the main source, is resoundly trashed here.

It's probably because most of the ridiculous "alternatives" can't past either the economically feasible test, or violate the second law of thermodynamics, D-1... The oil company's dark conspiracy has NOT reached into the souls of FReepers who demand reality in alternative energy proposals... don't worry!!!  There you go... this just has to be about me and those big dastardly oil companies, it couldn't be about anything else could it.  I don't come here and rail on the oil companies for windfall profits.  I give them very little grief for not opening new refineries.  I don't trash them all that much for closing down to rework the formulas driving up costs year after year after year.  So don't go there Ace.

We just like physics, chemistry and other scientifically tested theories, rather than the baseless barrage of dreamy alternatives the simply won't do as flexible and safe and all-around feasable job as hydrocarbons, ok???  So that's why you're on a thread on the topic of nuclear energy and taking me to task because I made a point you are proving valid.

Some of us also feel the same way about "Big Pharma" and all the other "BIG's!" They bees big because they help people live better lives, by and large!!! (Oh! And they keep productive people actually employed, too!!!)   I have defended Big Pharmaceutical houses here for over ten years.  I didn't talk down to folks to do it.  I also didn't take folks to task who had been doing the same thing.

[BuffaloJack]

Build more nuke plants.
There will be plenty of electric vehicles plugged in overnight charging their batteries to sap the excess capacity by the time the nukes come on line.

[Delacon]

“If 80% nuclear power generation is too much for a country’s electricity grid to absorb 24/7 that does not mean that some lesser % such as 30, 40, 50, or 60 might not be very beneficial.”

I think that was the point the author was trying to make. Nuclear power will help us but just not on the level that it has for France or McCain thinks it will for us.

[PreciousLiberty]

This article is nonsense. First of all, solar is the perfect solution to pick up the peak demand times, since they are during the day. Also, nuclear plants certainly can be ‘turned down’ by increasing moderation to reduce neutron flux. That will reduce heat output, and conserve the fissionable material.

Nuclear is enough cheaper (absent ridiculous regulation) that in a free market it should do fine. Even if we ‘only’ got to 50% energy generated by nuclear, that would be a VAST improvement over our current sad situation.

Remember, nuclear + plug in hybrids = FFO (Free From OPEC)

[SierraWasp]

"The end result is always paralysis."

You're right!!! Analysis paralysis, generated by GANG-GREEN!!!

[jrawk]

Much of what is said here is patently false the rest could speciously be applied to any form of energy generation. What was flawed was not the source, it was the business model... this is no cogent argument for deciding U.S. Nuke Power policy.

Modern plant designs don’t change fueling for demand, It isn’t like you turn the fission up or down, but certainly can change power output to match demand.

The thing is they are so damned efficient that you don’t have to concern yourself with that waste. Further the energy in the fuel is so concetrated waste is not really an issue anyhow.

The amount of Uranium required and expended to provide a family of four their energy needs for a year fits in a Coke Can! For coal, it measures tons and fits in train cars.

There is enough known Uranium deposits in New Mexico alone to run the country for 200 years. Uranium mining has a bad rap as it has never truly taken place under modern circumstances outside the environment of the Cold War in the 50’s and 60’s. But if restarted would not be a malaise of “tailings” as yellow creeks.

There has never in the history of the US been a death attributable to Nuke Power Generation, including 3 Mile Island where modern studies even actually put the cancer rates as not just lower than prophesized but lower than much of the nation. The meltdown itself is as much a creation of comic books as it is of the Russian Politburo as Chernobyl did not even have a Containment Vessel and had no buisiness running as a facility!

There have already been deaths this year in the hydrocarbon energy production game and every year prior, not to mention the estimated 40,000 a year that die from the fallout of Coal Pollution. When I say fallout I mean fallout, not just the dust, acid and cinders (I don’t care about CO2) as there is of course Atomic Radiation related to Coal Power production as well. Like anything pulled from the ground there are many isotopes that find there way into coal stocks naturally. Yes you can find a Coal Power Plant with the right Geiger counter.

Modern Nuke like France uses, or soon to complete engineering like the pebble bed systems from South Africa are scalable and safe, repeatable and designed to run on 100 year cycles.

This article is the one that is cynical pessimistic bunk! 13 years from now we in Texas will prove it to you when our next Nuke Plant opens furthering still our clean energy independence from the rest of the US Grid.

— lates
— jrawk

[SierraWasp]

Besides, I think McMistake just came up with this righteous proposal when he finally had it explained to him that he was about to lose every vote of every thinking rank-and-file conservative Republican or Democrat with that goofy Gorebull Warming nonsense he was spoutin like a complete idiot!!!

[DoughtyOne]

I didn't intend that previous reply to offend you. Well it did.  It seemed to lump me in with folks that do things I don't, and I didn't appreciate it.  You know I can't tolerate Juan McMistake, especially for his trying to elevate GW to any level of legitimacy, but if he thinks nuclear will solve our dependence on oil alone, then I'm forced to agree with him. He's right!!!  I agree he's right.  What's more, I was trashing the author of the article who was trying to make the case he was full of crap on this topic.  I will never vote for McCain, but if he's right on a subject, I'll agree that he is.

I still think his campaign is going down in flames worse than Dole/Kemp's did and I still won't vote for his miserable maverick carcuss, but he's right on nuclear power even if there ain't no man-made GW to resolve!!! This stance will nuke HIM!!! (even though he's half right)  I'll tell you what, whether it nukes him or not, if I were him I'd be explaining in great detail why I took the stand on it I did, and let the chips fall where they will.  I also think he's going down in flames.  I am seeing some indications some leftist will jump on his band wagon.  I sure hope this lefitst bastard doesn't get elected, because it will prove to many that the Republican party doesn't need Conservatives, when it actually does if it wants this nation to survive.

I do appreciate the follow-up.  Thanks.

[marron]

I wonder what quantity of uranium reserves we have access to for the future?

Good question. I don't know.

I think we've learned that there is lots of uranium in subsaharan Africa, but somehow that isn't really the answer we're looking for.

[DoughtyOne]

Exactly. I’ve tried to make the same point twenty to thirty times, and have been shot down for having made the case.

This topic is so frustrating. You’re exactly right, and it baffles me why folks don’t understand why.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree. And what’s more, it drives me crazy to see this same guy disagreeing with the Global Warming stuff, and then taking the Global Warming crowd’s side on Nuclear energy production.

[Delacon]

I think that the author’s point was the nuclear power isn’t going to be the panacea that McCain or anyone else(including me) thought it was going to be. Seriously, I thought outside of the need for potable fuels, nuclear power could solve all our problems if it wasn’t for those lefty “I watched China Syndrom” idiots who dismiss the benefits of nuclear power out of hand. This article puts forth the idea that nuclear power can be only part of the mix(and to a much lesser degree than I had previously thought).

[DoughtyOne]

When I first read this post, it seemed to be lumping me in with those who trash big oil. I reread the post, and that’s not what you were infering at all. You were staing that you weren’t being influenced by big oil, whic is a different point. I am sorry I reacted the the post the way I did.

I don’t mind objections based on physics. There should be valid objections based physics if supported. What I object to is knee-jerk articles like this one, and even posts here that put down anything other than oil. You don’t agree with this guy either. For that reason, you should understand where I’m coming from.

Take care.

[AndyJackson]

There are mutliple things wrong with this guys thesis and anyalysis. Even if EDF has run at a loss, that loss is more than compensated by not having to keep two battle groups on patrol in the IO for eternity. Second, EDF is a state run socialized organization and is not necesarily supposed to run at a profit. I am sure that a lot of its profitablity woes at EDF could be fixed by moving folks from the emplyment roles at EDF to the general welfare roles. Third, night time electricity is used in the US. Energy intensive industries prefer to run at times of cheap power. Fourth, the state of Illinois gets about 80% of its electrical power from nuclear plants operated by Excelon. Fifth, the guy is anti-nuke and anti-coal. He is pushing non-existent “alternatives.” Sixth: “61% of the French public favours a phase-out of nuclear energy.” there is no evidence for that. The French are laughing their heads off at the rest of the world. They are “energy independent.”