In the late 1970’s France decided to go nuclear in a big way. The country’s journey into nuclear energy is unique in that they began with very little generating capacity and set out to completely change the base energy in one of the most developed countries in the world. The numbers say it all. They have done very very well at the task by committing to nuclear energy and doing the job right at every level.
Public opinion in France has polled highly behind nuclear energy. Better than 70% of the population had a good opinion of the technology, despite the efforts by anti-nuclear lobby groups to oppose nuclear energy. In France, communities take pride in their local nuclear power plants and the bounty it has provided them. (source)
Vital Stats:
Electricity Generating Capacity: 79% nuclear
Electrical Energy Production: 85.7% nuclear
Active Power Plants: 59
Energy Supply (Total): Nuclear generated electricity accounts for as much as 40% of France’s energy usage. France hopes to increase this by increasing the use of electricity for transportation.
Fossil Fuel Electricity Production: <5%
Electrical Exports: Up to 18% of the power generated in France is exported, making it one of the largest exporters in Europe.
(source1) (source2) (source3)
France generates nearly all baseload power from nuclear energy. 9.3% of electricity is generated by hydroelectric power, making it the second largest source of electricity. Less than 5% comes from fossil fuel. In most cases, fossil fuel power plants are only used for times of unusually high demand and low supply (peakers). Only 3.3% of the electricity in France is generated by burning coal.
Accounting for exports, which far exceed the fossil fuel which France burns to generate power, the net effect is actually the equivalent of greater than 100% use of non-carbon sources for domestic power.
(source)
Time Scale:
France began with only a small nuclear energy capacity in 1980 and reached greater than 50% nuclear energy by 1990. By the mid 1990’s, nuclear energy accounted for the vast majority of electricity generated in France.
In order to do this, France had to build 56 nuclear reactors in a period of only 20 years as well as construct enrichment, fuel fabrication, waste disposal and other support infrastructure almost from scratch.
(source)
Economics:
France is the largest exporters of electricity in the entire world, exporting more than 100 Terawatt hours annually to Germany, Italy, Britain and others.
France has some of the cheapest electricity in all of Europe. In 1998 it was .047 US dollars (4.7 US cents) per kilowatt hour. The price in 2006 was .051 US dollars both due to a weakening US dollar and a small increase in the cost of electricity in France.
The largest force driving the price of electricity in France is exports. Ironically, although France has a surplus of electricity, it is becoming more lucrative to export the power to countries like Germany or the UK where the electricity prices are .089 USD and .087 USD respectively. For this reason, some in France have called for reduced exports. The lucrative market in energy-starved countries neighboring France is seen as the largest danger to the economics of electricity for French consumers.
Energy Usage:
Per capita, France has some of the highest energy usage of any European country. It is ranked number 10 in the world, above Ireland, Japan, Germany, the UK and Switzerland. Of the countries which use more energy, most have a distinctly colder climate. The United States uses considerably more as well, but we’re glutens like that and we like our cars big. (source)
Effect on the Environment:
Nitrogen Oxide and Sulfur Dioxide emissions are down 70% in the past 20 years. Co2 is down dramatically and all this has occurred despite a tripling of the power output of the country. Despite the increase in motor vehicles and energy use in general, CO2 emissions dropped from a height of 600 million metric tons in the mid 1970’s to less than 400 million metric tons by the mid 1990’s. (source1) (source2)
French Co2 Compared to Other Countries:
Per Capita Co2: 6.2 metric tons annual (2004)
World wide rank: Number 63 (one of the lowest of any industrial nation)
By Comparison:
Qatar: 69.2 Metric Tons – Rank 1
Kuwait – 38.0 Metric Tons – Rank 2
UAE – 37.8 Metric Tons – Rank 3
Luxemburg – 24.9 Metric tons – Rank 4
The United States: 20.4 Metric Tons – Rank 10
Canada: 20.0 Metric Tons – Rank 11
Norway: 19.09 Metric Tons – Rank 12
Australia: 16.3 Metric tons – Rank 13
Chez Republic: 11.2 Metric Tons – Rank 26
Ireland: 10.4 Metric Tons – Rank32
United Kingdom: 9.79 Metric Tons – Rank 37
Germany 9.79 Metric tons – Rank 38
Iceland: 7.6 Metric Tons – Rank 53
Click here for a complete list
Fuel Cycle and Waste:
Frances uses approximately 10,000 tons of uranium annually. With the exception of some enriched uranium bought from Russia all uranium is enriched domestically.
France imports more than half of the uranium currently used for nuclear energy. The primary nations which supply this are Canada, Niger, Australia, Kazakhstan and Russia. (source)
Over 70,000 metric tons of uranium have been mined domestically in France and known recoverable reserves total greater than 200,000 metric tons. If necessary, France is capable of supplying its own uranium needs from domestic reserves for decades using the current fuel cycle. Importing of uranium currently is more economical, but the ability to be self-reliant has been demonstrated. (source)
France has one of the most active recycling systems for spent nuclear fuel.
High level waste from reprocessing of nuclear fuel is vitrified into a material which has been tested for long term durability and inert qualities. Each year, France produces approximately 160 cubic meters of the diluted waste in a glass-like form. The material is being stored in dry secure storage and will soon be transferred to deep geological storage. The material will be less radioactive than the original ore in a matter of centuries. (source)
France also generates a large volume of low and medium level waste, most of which consists of contaminated equipment, membranes, fluid and residue. Much of this material can be decontaminated but this expense is generally considered unwarranted. The waste is solidified in concrete in stainless steel drums.
Some of the spent fuel is maintained in “fuel banks” as a strategic reserve,
Safety Record:
Spotless (source)
There has never been a major incident which put public health and safety at risk. The worst incidents have all been contained and completely within the capabilities of redundant safety systems. The worst nuclear security event in French history is considered to be the 1982 Missile attack on a nuclear facility by the Swiss Green Party. Although the nuclear core had not been installed at the time, it was still considered an unsettling safety incident which could easily have been fatal. (Irony anyone?)
The Future:
France has already stated an interest in developing Generation IV reactor technologies and hopes to begin replacing their current reactors with more efficient fast spectrum reactors within the next 20 years. France has also lead the way in new reprocessing technologies and transmutation of waste by accelerators and fast spectrum reactors.
Conclusion:
France has seen an extreme economic benefit from the use of nuclear energy and has become the most self-sufficient country in all of Europe for energy needs. The economics have been demonstrated by the fact that it is now a huge exporter of electricity.
The environmental aspects have been equally positive. In France, nearly all CO2 production is from sources other than electricity generation. This is considerably different than most other industrial countries. The ample supply of clean electricity has also allowed France to begin looking into ways of reducing carbon fuels for transportation, heating and other needs by replacing them with electricity.
This entry was posted
on Monday, April 7th, 2008 at 8:18 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, Enviornment, Good Science, Nuclear.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
April 8th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Theanphibian said:
It’s not hotlinked. It is hosted locally and also it was resized, but otherwise it’s not edited. The link on the paragraph next to it clearly indicates the source of the graph, but if you have a problem with it being up it will be removed.
Quote Comment
April 8th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I have always supported Nuclear industry but its only really been successful in France and has been a failure in UK, USA, etc.
Whats the point in building a $10,000,000,000 ($10 billion) plant when you can build wind or solar plants.
Wind and Solar make way more sense then Nuclear.
Nuclear is the technology of 50 years ago…today wind and solar are the way to go.
Im sure people in America such as those who live in Souther California, Las Vegas or Phoenix would prefer solar panels on their roof…it just makes better sense.
But also by having a solar panel on your home you also increase its value alot.
Quote Comment
April 8th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“More modest and sustainable living is part of it as is the changing of this ridiculous distribution of income which rampant consumerism has caused.”
It is really admirable how well this clearly higly educated person is versed in economical history, considering the fact that most historians thought that the distribution of income in agrarian (=poor) societies is worse than the present distribution. Not having a large middle class clearly helps in having a equitable distribution of income.
Another note: that flag is the Belgian flag, as uncomfortable that is for me as Belgian. Maybe we are going to annex the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, but I wouldn’t count on that.
Quote Comment
April 8th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
name said:
Well a nuclear plant for one thing does not cost ten billion dollars (more like four billion although really you could build it for half of that if you had a policy that was pro-nuclear). Wind and solar? I’d love to have them if they had a prayer of a chance of providing even a few percent of energy needs.
They can’t and haven’t.
Take a look at the example of Texas: They build more wind turbines in Texas than any other state in the US. More than most countries. Right now they’re putting up a new one something like every half hour. Massive ones too. Guess how many coal plants they’ve shut down: None. Actually they’re planning on building new ones because the wind turbines they’re building feverishly are not enough to keep up with the demand as is, much less replace other forms of energy.
Now as for solar: I can show you a number of examples of solar plants which cost somewhere between 100 million dollars and a quarter of a billion dollars. Less expensive than nuclear? Well not really, considering that each of these plants produces about as much energy as a single solitary large locomotive. Yes, a quarter of a billion dollars and it’s like taking one single solitary freight train off the tracks.
All the solar power in all of California, and it has more than any other state totals over two billion dollars of solar cells and related systems installed over the past 20 years. Energy produces is less than the equivalent shaft horsepower from a single midsized wide-body airliner.
Can it be done cheaper? Can it be improved?
Not really. We’ve just about hit the wall on effeciency because as things stand now it’s a matter of the simple fact that light ionizes only a certain percent of electrons in a material. It can be done slightly cheaper, but when it comes down to it the thin film cells tend to have a shorter life and worse effeciency. In the end you can’t get away from the sheer amount of space needed to have it work at all.
Then there’s solar thermal which has the one advantage of storing energy so having a more uniform output. Big disadvantages though: Considerably more maintainace (at least PV is mechanically simple). It turns out solar thermal is less effecient in terms of total energy conversion as well. Also, though claims have been made of it being less expensive, thus far it has failed to live up to this.
If an industrial windmill were a building it would qualify as a skyscraper. On average they produce 15-30% of the nameplate output. So if you have a 3 megawatt windmill you actually get an average of 1 megawatt.
Of course it varies, and sometimes you get no output. This is a HUGE problem.
Quote Comment
April 8th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Vjatcheslav said:
Oh oops sorry. You guys should consider making your flags more distinctive. I guess maybe it makes manufacturing them more effecient. You can retool from a German to a Belgian flag and from a French to a Russian one pretty easily.
I must be a little dyslexic.
Quote Comment
April 8th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
drbuzz0 said:
Yes, yes, sorry, i didn’t even check the source. I’m sure the Wiki Foundation appreciates you saving them the bandwidth.
But dude, nobody could make you take it down if they tried. That’s the point of free media, the creators WANT to see people use the stuff. Resize, edit, mark all over the thing, I’ll even show you where to upload a new version to replace the current one in Wikipedia Commons if you want.
The internet. It works.
Quote Comment
April 8th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Theanphibian said:
You gotta be careful these days with the way GNU licenses are put out on things. People get in trouble if they don’t include all the source code or don’t have all the citations and that kind of thing. I’m not sure what version of the license is what, but you can never be too careful
Quote Comment
April 8th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I thought it was just the GNU 2.0 license that people have been getting in trouble for? I’m sure a lawyer can find a clause in there somewhere to sue someone for something.
Quote Comment
April 8th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I’m wondering, if someone were to succeed in building a bona fide perpetual motion machine, would the Greenpeace save-the-Earth
types find some excuse for opposing its use to generate grid power? And, would they especially opose such technology if for some
reason it had a minimum practical size comparable to most nuclear power plants?
Quote Comment
April 8th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Dogbert said:
I’ve heard similar things before, but this kind of thing really irks me. The purpose really is to make media more available and reproducible. I’ve discovered that about the only way to truly accomplish this objective sometimes is to just release something in public domain.
And the only cases I’ve heard of there being trouble is where someone uploads a picture of their friend in Creative Commons or something and then a company uses it in advertising – technically allowable under the terms it was released under, but at the same time, the person photographed never gave permission (not that they have to anyway), was not aware of the use, and it falls under deformation of character and some other stuff.
Quote Comment
April 8th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Vjatcheslav said:
Yeah they should do something about the European flags. I don’t have very good color vision and I’ve had some trouble telling an Irish from an Italian flag before.
Quote Comment
April 8th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Evil Henchman said:
Don’t worry, you are not alone. Judging from some commentors in this blog, looking at a green world through red colored glasses makes everything look black-and-white.
Quote Comment
April 8th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
KLA said:
I love it, I just love it. Bet one I’ve seen in a long time.
Quote Comment
April 8th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
name said:
Well, I really do want to see the world be a cleaner and more sustainable place and I really do like the idea of having energy avaliable that is cheap and environmentally sound and all that good stuff. For this reason it pains me to tell you this, but you have fallen for one of the biggest lies of our time.
What you are stating is a common mindset which completely ignores the facts that the actual numbers for wind and solar energy production (nevermind price, but the actual energy you can even expect to get) are just pathetic. They’re pitifully small, ridiculously tiny and very close to completely useless.
Sorry. I don’t want it that way but it is.
Quote Comment
April 8th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
name said:
Well yeah, if they’re PV cells they sure would. I’d be willing to pay more for a house covered with them because I could recoup the money bu ripping ‘em off and selling them to some idiot who thinks they’re good for the environment. Big PV cells are expensive ya know! eBay?
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2008 at 1:31 am