 | Countdown to €100 Oil: €70 Oil | The Oil Drum: Europe | Andris Piebalgs : getting a sense of proportion |  |
France and Italy: is nuclear power the way for energy independence?
Posted by Ugo Bardi on March 25, 2008 - 9:58am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: nuclear, nuclear energy [list all tags]
This is a guest post by Eugenio Saraceno, member of ASPO-Italy and consultant for energy sources management.
France's nuclear power plants produce almost 80% of the nation's electricity. In contrast, nearby Italy has no nuclear plant in operation.
One of the main arguments of the present debate on energy is whether a nuclear energy program should be restarted or not. We can use the cases of Italy and France as a way for evaluating whether it is a good idea for a non nuclear country to get nuclear plants.
Italy is probably the only country in the world that has dismantled by law the existing nuclear plants. It was the result of a referendum against nuclear power that was held twenty years ago and that led to the stopping of all nuclear energy activities in the country. The only nuclear plant that was under construction at the time, Montalto di Castro on the Tyrrenian coast, was converted to natural gas. In the following years, the Italian government shut down the remaining nuclear plants even though it this was not required by the results of the referendum, probably due to economic and security considerations.
So, nuclear power was completely abandoned in Italy in the 1980s and the country focused on hydrocarbons for the generation of electricity. Years of low oil prices helped this trend but, after 2000, with rising oil prices the debate on nuclear power restarted. Nuclear supporters say now that stopping the Italian nuclear program was a mistake and that new nuclear plants will have to be built because of the very low price per kWh produced. The debate is ongoing in the Italian TV and in the press and, recently, the leading candidate for the right wing party for the coming April elections, Mr. Berlusconi, has stated that, if elected, his government will restart the Italian nuclear program.
In contrast to the case of Italy, France is engaged in the most ambitious nuclear program in the whole world, achieving the maximum ratio of nuclear energy to total electric power production, near 80%. France has 63 GWe of installed nuclear power, 58 reactors over 19 sites.
For a comparison, first of all let's see some data about the energy consumption in both countries.
All data in the table are for the year 2005. Look at the yellow boxes for a quick assessment of the relevant differences and similarities between the two systems. Coal consumption is nearly the same for France and Italy, while oil consumption is larger for France, especially for the transport and household sectors. However, natural gas consumption is lower in France by nearly 30 Mtep. Italians have to burn about 26 Mtep of natural gas in order to generate electric power. This is the relevant advantage of nuclear power: without nuclear, the French would have needed 75 Mtep extra of natural gas.
However, it is also clear that nuclear energy cannot satisfy all energy needs of a country. So, even though France has nuclear power, the country still has to import coal and hydrocarbons (natural gas and oil derived fuels) whose prices are not influenced by the presence of atomic power. So in 2005 the energy imports bill for France and Italy was nearly the same, 37,5 G€ for France and 38,5 for Italy.
We can also compare energy prices in France and Italy. Here are the relevant data.
Note how oil products have nearly the same price in both countries. Natural gas prices for both France and Italy are very similar and lower than the EU-15 mean. The real advantage for France is the low cost of electricity, lower than the EU-15 average and much lower than in Italy. Again, we see that nuclear energy has an effect on the prices of electricity, but not on other energy sectors.
France is a large net exporter of electric power while Italy is the largest net importer in Europe, mostly from France, directly or via Switzerland. France produces electrical power mainly by nuclear energy and hydropower. Italy mainly burns gas in combined cycles or oil and coal in steam turbine plants. Italy has also a good quota of hydropower and the best geothermal production in Europe. The electricity use table shows consumption in various sectors. This time the yellow boxes are all for France. First, look at the distribution losses and plant services consumption (electricity generation sector). These data describe the efficiency of electricity generation and distribution services processes; this ratio is 11,2% for France and 9,5% for Italy. The scarce attention for efficiency in France is probably due to the abundant and cheap electricity available. Considering final uses, the interesting point is the huge French household and service consumption sectors, nearly twice as large as in Italy.
Surely electricity is cheap in France, but what is the real cost of the nuclear kWh? As a first approximation let's consider the whole French production as if it was all nuclear. Then consider that electricity consumption of France is partitioned into two nearly equal parts, industrial (at an average price of 54,1 €/MWh) and domestic (at an average price of 92,1 €/MWh), so the average income for producers is 73 €/MWh. This cost is the maximum possible cost for nuclear energy; otherwise operators couldn't make a profit. The value fits well with IEA World Energy Outlook 2005 that estimates costs between 60-70 €/MWh for nuclear electricity. This value is very far from values of 20-30 €/MWh reported from some optimistic sources. These values could be justified only by means of unrealistic assumptions, such as plant lifespan over 35 years, medium plant availability over 7500 hours per year, interest rate under 5%, building time time less than 5 years, building cost less than 2000 €/kW and others.
It appears that electricity prices in France remain low thanks to the huge past investments in nuclear power. French Families and small firms pay for electricity very low rates, nearly half than what Italians have to pay. On the other hand, they enjoy so much these good rates that household and services consumption of electric power is double than in Italy. So, in the end, French and Italian people spend the same in terms of their electricity bill. Evidently, Jevons's paradox is valid also for nuclear power: if you have something cheap, you tend to waste it.
As a last relevant point, let us consider the problem of nuclear fuel availability in the coming years. See below some data in the figure
Produceable uranium at various extraction costs (reasonably assured resources and inferred resource)
EDF (Electricité de France), the Franch nuclear utility, estimates that there exist economically exploitable uranium reserves for 60 years of present consumption (67 kT/year). This fits well with the on uranium by energy watch group (EWG). And then? And what if many countries step up their nuclear energy production? A research effort is ongoing on new nuclear technologies such as fast neutron reactors and more efficent uranium mining methods, even from seawater. But concrete results on these issues seem to be very far, Commercial fast neutron reactors are expected to be on the market in 2040; perhaps too late to have an effect on the scarcity of mineral uranium. Uranium from seawater was experimentally obtained in small quantities, of the order of kilograms. We do not see a program for commercial exploitation of the industrial quantities that would be needed, of the order of ktons. Moving to mineral uranium very low concentrations (<0,1%) is possible, but there is a minimum value of the concentration that can be exploited because the energy required for mining it would exceed electric energy that could be obtained from it. The EWG reports that this limit is 0,01%, others report lower values but it is clear that today we have a strong uncertainty on the availability of mineral uranium and, as a consequence, on the role of nuclear energy in the future. This could be the real reasons for the modest growth of the nuclear sector in the last few years.
In the end, we see that complete independence in energy production with nuclear power was not reached by France, nor Italy could hope to reach it by revamping its old nuclear program at this point. To reach the French level of nuclear energy production, Italy would have to build almost 20 GWe of nuclear power, spend over 40 G€ and this would take some 10-20 years. Doing so, Italy couldn't hope to become independent from hydrocarbon imports since we see that France couldn't do that, either, despite all her nuclear reactors.
Energy independence for countries that have (or plan to build) nuclear energy could be obtained increasing the cost of electricity costs in order to avoid wasting power and using the extra incomes for financing energy efficiency and substituting hydrocarbons using plug-in hybrid or all electric veichles in urban areas and heat pumps for household and services. Obviously, this has not been done in France: in no country of the world politicians become popular by raising prices of utilities. So, France has not attained energy independence, despite the huge effort made on nuclear power. Whether the return to nuclear energy planned by Italy and other countries can do that, is all to be seen.
References
Several resources have been utilized for the preparation of this paper. Statistics on the energy use in France and Italy have been derived from the Eurostat site
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=0,1136239,0_4557144...
Specific data about italy have been obtained from
www.terna.it
www.mercatoelettrico.org/GmeWebInglese/Default.aspx
www.snamretegas.it (Italian gas utility)
www.autorita.energia.it
Specific data about France came from
www.rte-france.com
www.edf.com
www.gazdefrance.com
www.areva.com (French nuclear utility)
www.prix-carburants.gouv.fr/index.php?module=dbgestion&action=search
Data about uranium production and costs have been obtained from
www.world-nuclear.org/info/uprod.html World uranium production
www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx Uranium prices
The study by the energy watch group cited in the text can be found at
www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Uraniumreport_12-2006....
A general discussion on the cost of nuclear energy (in italian) can be found at http://www.aspoitalia.net/images/stories/coiante/coiantecostonucleare.pd... http://www.aspoitalia.net/images/stories/coiante/coiantenucleare2.pdf
How much of its uranium does France import? I'm just interested to know how much energy independence France actually has.
75% from Niger I hear. Just like Saddam was supposed to. Don't know the amounts.
As a former French colony, I suppose France thinks Niger is a fairly safe bet but it's hardly energy independence. I keep reading this (energy independence) about France's nuclear project but it just doesn't ring true if they have to import most or all of their fuel source. I suppose they have their fingers crossed that unrestricted global trade will go on for some time.
Iraq, Egypt and Nigeria used to be British colonies, Venezuela a Spanish colony, Libya Italian, and... yet...
If I'm building a reactor that I expect to last 30-50 years, I want to make sure I've got fuel for it for that long. Or at least half that long.
Occasional "visits' by the French Foreign Legion keep Chad, Niger, etc. more French than most former colonies.
In addition, one can store a LOT of urabium in a small volume (and I suspect that France has several years worth stored) and France is reprocessing (successfully) limited amounts of spent fuel, another source of reactor fuel.
Alan
According to this paper, Canada is the number one source, Niger second.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm
The author and editor of the original article have not addressed the point that their comparison of France and Italy ignores a 21% variance.
France's GDP is 21% larger than Italy.
So using similar amounts of coal or other energy is ignoring that France has 21% more GDP to support.
The overall level of nuclear as part of overall energy is represented by that 21% of GDP.
Sounds like Italy should import nuclear electricity from France since conservation would give the French some to spare. We don't know which is going to go up in price the most in the next 20 years, fossil fuel or nuclear.
Since I didn't catch the relative population numbers I'd like to see projected average household costs in euros under a range of assumptions. These could include extrapolated per capita energy usage, conservation/electric transportation modified usage and with different fuel price scenarios.
Italy does import electricity from France.
It's pretty funny to be boasting of being nuclear free when you import the electricity from nuclear reactors in the next country.
Yes, it is true that "80%" of electricity isn't 80% of energy. Even assuming a lithium-ion vehicle fleet, electrified railway system, and electric heaters & factories, they would need to at least double the number of plants. Especially if France remains the largest electricity exporter in Europe.
If Italy tries to catch up, hopefully they'll build several dozen at a time, and they'll be fast reactors. The Super Phenix was producing power at less than twice that of thermal neutron reactors, and that cost is expected to drop with Gen-IV Fast Reactors:
pg. 14:
http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/genIvFastReactorRptToCongressDec2006.pdf
France already has enough depleted uranium lying around to power those for thousands of years.
It will be interesting to see how things play out, but either way nuclear is much more promising than wind. The biggest issue, it would appear, is just building the plants fast enough.
I'm not at all sure why you would hope for this. All experience with fast reactors to date show a more expensive fuel cycle, inherently less safety, larger capital costs and larger maintenance costs. Not to mention they're entirely unnecissary given the vast amount of uranium availaible.
If we pursue breeder reactors, liquid fluoride thermal reactors with the thorium fuel cycle offer a much more plausible fuel cycle. If we absolutely need hard spectra reactors, liquid chloride reactors are far more reasonable.
I'm not talking about fast breeders. Rather, fast-burners:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html
http://www.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps74.pdf
All fast neutron reactors suffer from the same problems, weather they're burning light water reactor fuel or breeding their own.
Theres no future in any liquid metal fast neutron reactor. Any of the problems they adress, fluid fuel reactors do much better.
If they are such brilliant technical solutions, then why is nobody building them? Can you give an example of an experimental reactor based on this approach?
They've been prototyped at ORNL in the molten salt breeder reactor experiment. They haven't been pursued basically for reasons of political inertia. Liquid metal fast neutron breeders were first to be developed and swallowed the lions share of the funding. In the halcyon days of the cold war, the dual use nature of LMFBRs for rapid plutonium production may have been attractive as well.
As for why no ones building them today, basically no one needs breeder reactors now. If these reactors are to succeed they need to be more than simply better at fuel utilization and waste production. But capturing the several billion in capital for developing a new reactor along with navigating the minefield of licensing an entirely new design isn't something I see private capital pursuing, at least not in the united states.
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/
I don't think we need a new-fangled molten metal breeder reactor to begin with.
Jimmy Carter commissioned the Shippingport light water breeder reactor in 1977(250 MW), which breeds U-233 out of thorium and a thorium/plutonium MOX starter fuel and it ran until zombie Reagan shut it down in 1982.
Countries like Norway, the US, India and Australia have lots of thorium and you get 50 times the energy per pound in a breeder reactor.
http://www.thoriumpower.com/files/Thorium_Fuel_for_Nuclear_Energy_by_Kaz...
Carter, probably our first Peak Oil president started half a dozen
technologically sucessful mitigation efforts in his few years in office( such as Great Plains Gasification).
Is it technologically possible to maintain our lifestyle with breeder reactors?
It may be(for a couple hundred years).
3% of ALL US energy comes from nukes(3 quads), so we would have to increase the amount of generation 12 times(~36 quads), assuming that 2/3 of the base energy of fossil fuels is lost and we'd covert every thing(electric cars, trains, heaters, etc.) to electricity.
Is it desirable?
Breeder reactors are extremely radioactive as is their waste. Accidents
could contaminate large areas.
They would make excellent terrorist targets and paranoid governments would make our lives (more)miserable.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/cooking_in_the_danger_zone/6638351...
If we chose nukes over renewables we continue on our current wasteful track, but with renewables we will move into a lower energy future, better in balance with nature.
You're severely mistaken in your points. The U.S. gets 8% of its overall energy from nuclear, 20% for electricity. Plants are not vulnerable to terrorist attacks due to their robust containment dome. The fuel supply is 'virtually limitless' using low-grade ores from granite or ocean water in fast neutron reactors. It is more desirable to have hot waste, since it decays quickly. The half-life of strontium-90 is only 28.8 years. The whole point is that you're destroying transuranic actinides, which are the long-lived wastes of LWRs.
If you would like to learn more about nuclear power, I highly recommend the new Cravens book, which was written using expertise from Rip Anderson, one of the most highly regarded nuclear experts in the world.
http://cravenspowertosavetheworld.com/
Severely?
You're correct that it provides 8% of US energy--I didn't count all the energy wasted by nuke-steam generation. The point I was making is that society would save energy by changing to electricity;
40 exajoules of petroleum replaced by 8 XJ of electricity plus 23 XJ of natural gas replaced by 18.4 XJ of electricity(less with heat pumps) plus 22 XJ of coal replaced by 7.3 XJ of electricity plus 2.6 XJ of electricity from nuclear, totaling 36.3XJ of electricity. So we would increase from 2.6 XJ electricity to 36.3 XJ or 14 times. So increasing nukes by 14 times is not that much.
You seem to think that there is plenty of uranium to supply all society's needs using ground up granite or seawater, a few parts per billion or less but that's idiotic based on simple EROEI. If you have to mine 100 times more rock to get the same amount of uranium out of it you end up with an EROEI of well under 1, in other words all the energy would be used up in giant mining and processing operations.
The Energy Watch Group says the world has about 70 years of uranium based on current use rates.
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Press_Uranium_2...
Then you say this...
This a very good reason to go with thorium reactors, which is why I posted what I did.
There is (almost) no transuranic actinides with thorium breeder reactors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle#Actinides_in_a_thorium_m...
Craven is a green-to-nuke convert like James Lovelock which means that they are likely to overlook the dangers of nuclear power just as you do.
I hope this helps educate you(deuterium) on the advantages of thorium breeder reactors over uranium type reactors.
I think it is cleaner than the current U-235 units and as I mentioned Europe has large reserves of thorium.
As old technology(1977), it probably isn't sufficiently cool for a nuke lover such as yourself but thanks to JC, it has shown to be practical in a light water reactor. Everyone knows liquid metal reactors like Monju too dangerous.
Yet another advantage for thorium is that it burns hotter and so the nuke plant efficiency could be increased a bit.
Of course you forgot to that all thorium is stable Th-232 and therefore
can be converted into fissile U-233 in the reactor where as less than 1% of uranium is fissile U-235, so most of the fuel Th-232 can burnt.
Majorian,
37% of energy consumption in the U.S. is in the form of electricity. 20% of U.S. energy is electric. Do the math. Obviously nothing is 100% efficient, even for coal plants heat is lost. But for electric energy consumption, 20% is from nuclear.
As for your insistence that we will run out of uranium, you need to distinguish between U-235 and U-238. U-238 is 99.3% of uranium, which is important when using low-grade ores. The fissioning of a uranium atom unleashes 210 million electron volts-- 50 million times as much as a carbon atom. So yes, you can yield net energy.
http://www.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps74.pdf
My point is that we don't measure nukes in pounds of uranium but in electrical output. Yes, I ignored thermal outputs of nuke reactors for that reason.
As far as U238, I'm glad you understand that uranium from seawater or granite rocks could NEVER be supported by a once-thru, non-breeder program. In fact there is NO FUTURE for a nuke program based on a once-thru non-breeder process given the fact we have 70 years of virgin U-235 left. Once you buy into nukes, you have to buy into breeders and they are an order of magnitude more dangerous that the current nuke technology. Does that make you pause?
There's several misunderstandings here. The 70 years of LWR fuel we have left are based at $130/kg from current mines based on IAEA estimates, not probable resources that are exploitable at say $1000/kg. Uranium prices contribute to less than 1% of the total cost of nuclear power, and the industry can bear the cost of much higher uranium costs. The energy costs of mining as shown from the Rossing mine in Namibia are tiny compared to the output of the produced uranium from even very low grade ores. Future reactor regimes will have to compete on more than just fuel efficiency.
Second, the notion that breeder reactors are an order of magnitude more dangerous is just misinformed. Fast neutron reactors have inherent control problems that require more passive safety because of their high prompt neutron ratio, but there are techniques that in aggrigate can make fast neutron reactors safer than modern LWR regimes. But really, breeder reactors don't require fast neutron reactors at all except to run entirely on transuranics. Thorium breeder regimes can run entirely in the thermal spectrum.
Sodium cooled fast breeders are dangerous as well as expensive. In contrast the LFTR is very safe - safer than LWRs - and potentially less expensive than LWRs.
There appears to be some confusion here. I agree with you that thorium is a promising energy source, and India is pursuing the liquid fluoride salt technology to utilize thorium-232. However, in the case of uranium-238, the decision has been made to use sodium, lead, and helium gas. Liquid fluoride salt is ONLY for thorium, not U-238. See for yourself:
http://www.ne.doe.gov/genIV/neGenIV7.html
Sure, but liquid fluorides aren't the only fluid fuel regime. There's problems with FLiBe with plutonium solubility above various concentrations, but I believe it can handle some Pu load without serious problems.
However liquid chloride reactors offer much better chances of utilizing a hard spectrum than liquid metal reactors.
ORNL ran U233, U235 and Pu239 in the MSRE at the same time.
Thanks. But I am not so sure that molten sodium or lead reactors are all that horrible.
One real problem with liquid metal cooled reactors is their reliance on solid fuel in a reprocessing regime, which entails something that is a necissarily costly fabrication process compared to mined uranium in LWRs or no fabrication at all in the case of fluid fuel reactors.
Lead cooled reactors (or rather lead-bismuth eutectic reactors) are sort of awful because these eutectics are very heavy and hard to pump, corrosive, and the bismuth is highly prone to neutron activation into whats essentially the most radiotoxic substance known, Po-210.
Sodium cooled reactors of course have sodium fires and associated extra capital costs. Theres also the problem that the core is completely opaque to imaging so its hard to see what state the core is in.
Finally theres the inherant safety problems of any critical fast neutron reactor: Delayed neutron component. The delayed neutron component of fast reactors is vanishingly small compared to thermal reactors, such that the reactivity swings are on the order of miliseconds rather than minutes, so scramming the reactor becomes sort of a lost cause in the event of a criticality excursion. I think this can be managed, but fast reactors are allways inherently less safe than thermal reactors.
I was a proponent of the IFR at one point. I've since changed my mind.
Take a closer look at my links. The Integral fast reactor, now Gen-IV, is just as much a burner as a breeder. These reactors offer proliferations resistance. They can consume LWR waste or weapons plutonium, or U-238.
I'm quite familiar with the IFR. Its still far less desirable than LWRs. You have to do offer a significant advantages above the LWR beyond fuel utilization and waste production given these are tiny components of the price of nuclear power production. IFR doesnt adress these issues.
Dezakin,
I agree with you that Sodium reactors have been more expensive than LWRs, and that we should pursue thorium. However, there are high hopes that most of the issues involving industrial sodium have/will be worked out with the Gen-IV program. One of the goals is to make Sodium reactors commercially competitive with LWRs, and several nations envisage them replacing LWRs over the coming decades. So clearly, we have a lot of options. Explore more for LWR fuel, get the cost down for Sodium, Lead, and Helium reactors, or pursue Thorium. All should be done, in my opinion.
This sort of begging the question is a bit ignorant on nuclear fuel supply issues, which have been covered ad nausium multiple times before. The nuclear fuel estimates are made from current mines at $130/kg per the IAEA estimates, and then many outside the industry postulate that the 60 years of supply will be ultimately exhausted at that point. This doesn't take into account that at twice the price there are nearly ten times the exploitable resource base, that nuclear power production is largely immune to uranium price swings (less than 1% of the price of nuclear power is related to uranium ore prices) and there hasn't been much exploration for uranium for the past 50 years simply because there's so much of it.
This really is a strawman argument. No ones arguing that nuclear power alone is capable of displacing fossil fuels simply because the value of fossil fuels more than just electricity production. If you have a magic energy source that requires distribution networks of electric transmission lines and centralized production but is otherwise free, you still would consume hydrocarbons because they are cheaper for the purpose of many fuels.
But obviously if fossil fuels decline, nuclear can meet the demands of industry. Where France is much better positioned than italy is in coping with declining natural gas and oil resources, which is what I thought this site was purported to discuss.
This sort of policy advocacy is venturing nearly into political ideology. Many belive markets can often allocate the resources best and such rationing programs will simply create black markets, inefficiency, corruption, and waste while depriving people of wealth. Perhaps politicians can simply spend the revenue saved on electricity on such programs directly from the coffers of the larger tax base, or perhaps these programs are entirely unnecissary and will find their own place with the gradual rise of hydrocarbon prices.
The type of energy independance the author seems to be refering to is impossible as long as people are rational. No one would pursue X resource independace simply because many resources are distributed unevenly throughout the world and its cheaper to trade for products than not to. This is the case with Frances uranium today as well as fossil fuels throughout the world.
This: This sort of policy advocacy is venturing nearly into political ideology.
Is followed immediately by this:
Many belive markets can often allocate the resources best and such rationing programs will simply create black markets, inefficiency, corruption, and waste while depriving people of wealth.
I would have separated the two with a sentence or so, and the reader might not have noticed.
They're supposed to notice. Its the other side of the ideological coin. The point is that such an argument isn't going to have a right answer while people have political opinions.
Show me one really, truly unregulated free market. Show me one market that isn't influenced by goverment policy in one way or another or that isn't hampered by geological or geopolitical factors. Show me one market that isn't being influenced by industry cartels.
Free markets are a fantasy. They don't exist. Zip. Nada.
Narcotics are pretty much a free market, and the international arms trade is just about free.
The type of energy independance the author seems to be refering to is impossible as long as people are rational.
This is simply an assertion, with no signs of rationale. Costa Rica, Iceland, and the US, for example, each have a high degree of energy independence with respect to their electricity supply.
Its simply a statement about the rationality of trade. The US has ample supplies of coal and doesn't need to import it. This isn't a policy of independance by design but simply having the resources.
Actually, the US does import coal. France's policies are certainly one of design, as they have a number of energy resources available to them (i.e., French hydropower = 66.9 TWh, with a gross potential of 183 TWh). And add to that France's coal reserves, wind power potential, solar potential, geothermal power potential, and one can readily see that nuclear was a choice that had little to do with national resources.
Solar Power Potential
Geothermal Power Potential
Wind Power Potential (purple = best, blue = least)
France wanted to acquire an independent capacity to build nuclear weapons. Independent from the US that is, and unlike the UK's 'special relationship" nuclear capacity. Hence the focus on breeder technology and reprocessing. They achieved this goal by the end of the 1970's.
"Actually, the US does import coal. "
Sure, but it exports more.
The point is, the US has more than enough coal for it's needs.
With the price of fossil fuels as it has been over the last twenty years, there was no reason for France to seek total energy independence.
To critique a program for something it was not designed to achieve, and further to assert that because that objective which was not sought has not been reached that it is somehow impossible in the future is entirely unreasonable.
The provision of cheap and abundant energy can only be a good thing, and over the next few years as fossil fuel shortages bite then the relative inefficiency of French electricity use means that France will be able fairly easily to economise and use the savings to power, for instance, electric cars like this one:
http://www.gizmag.com/ukp14000-thnk-city-electric-car-ready-for-showroom...
UKP14,000 TH!NK city electric car ready for showrooms
The savings I have in mind would include, for instance, the French program of installing air heat pumps to multiply the efficiency of electricity for heating severalfold - they are currently installing 50,000 a year, and can easily step that up as fuel costs rise.
This is without building further reactors, which they could certainly do.
As upgrades become needed to the present reactor base then that in itself will increase capacity greatly, providing further possibilities to substitute fossil fuel, now that it is economic to do so - the fact that ff was so cheap was the real reason this has not already happened.
Citing only one source, which is an advocacy group opposed to nuclear power, EWG, also does not give a full picture of different views of uranium resources.
Here are alternative views:
http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.htm
Uranium supply
http://www.uic.com.au/WNA-UraniumSustainability.pdf
WNA-UraniumSustainability.pdf
Thorium can also be used, which is far more abundant.
The figures drawn together are useful, but the conclusions are downright bizarre.
France is 'guilty' of building an extremely safe source of abundant and cheap energy, and has not yet turned her attention to substituting fossil fuels with it, as they were so cheap it was not worth the bother.
Who is the better placed to weather coming shortages and high prices of fossil fuels, France or Italy?
This confounds figures from different times.
The IEA estimates from 2005 are, presumably, for new build. Let's have a look at how 'unrealistic' the lower estimates for cost are.
Plant lifespans over 35 years: Present plants were designed for a lifespan of an estimated 40 years. Experience has shown that this can usually be extended, and new plants by Areva now have an estimated lifespan of 60 years.
Median plant availability of 7500 hours: This comes out to around 85%, far less than the figures of over 90% regularly obtained, although possibly not in France, as electricity is often in such over-supply that plants are switched off - but it would not seem to be an over-challenging target if the power was needed, say when fossil fuels were in short supply or very expensive.
Building times less than 5 years: in series production France basically built the whole of their present fleet in 17 years, so why is this unreasonable? Latest designs are for repeat production of the same parts.
Interest rates under 5%: Recession, partly due to high fossil fuel costs, make this target in Europe at least seem eminently possible.
Building costs less than 2000Euros/kw: The current Finnish reactor being built has so far spent around $4bn, final costs look like perhaps $6bn. so that is around Euros 2400kw for this 1.65 GW design.
This is for the first build of a new design, and was redesigned as it was being built by an inexperienced Finnish workforce, so just how unrealistic is 2000Euros/kw for a series build of an established design?
Nuclear power in France has clearly been a fantastic bargain, and towards the bottom end of the cost range given, not the top as is asserted, and as fossil fuel costs rise can only get better - and it already turns out electricity at half the cost of that in Italy.
This difference will only increase.
France is also well along in electrifying transportation.
1) 1,500 km on new trams in the next decade. Towns of 100,000 will have trams.
2) SCNF will be 100% electrified (goal of 20 years set on 1/1/2006)
3) Three new TGV lines under construction ATM.
Best Hopes for EoT,
Alan
The USA uses 0.19% of it's electrical generation for transportation. I noted that the data presented shows France uses 2.37% of it's electricity for transportation.
Does the cost of electricity in France factor in the costs of eventually decommissioning the reactors, disposing (well, longterm safekeeping actually) of the spent fuel and reactor materials?
If not, what will that add to the cost?
Yes. These are longterm liabilities, with the most expensive being decomissioning of the reactors. The longer the reactor life, the smaller these liabilities proportionally are, especially with discounting.
Spent fuel disposal is also accounted for. It would be much cheaper if France didn't bother with reprocessing and geologic disposal and instead simply pursued dry cask storage for several centuries.
Probably not. They have been using their decommissioning funds to buy other utilities and are probably badly underfunded even if those purchases were considered liquid assets. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/nuclea...
Chris
You're citing greenpeace? You're serious?
You don't have to be serious to be right.
Here's one..
"Finances
In order to carry out the projected surveillance, a budget of 12 to 13 million francs a year until the year 2300 will be necessary. M. Kaluzny, director of Andra, has wondered himself: “Do financial instruments guaranteeing such revenues for three hundred years actually exist?” [LeMo l.xi.95]. "
http://www.francenuc.org/en_sites/lnorm_csm_e.htm (last comment at end of page)
Found while looking into the 'Turpin Commission',
"At the beginning of 1996, the government nevertheless set up an “independent” scientific commission, which submitted its report July 16, 1996. According to the commission, presided over by M. Turpin, the CSM will not be able to be released for unrestricted use after 300 years as planned, and the cover installed by Andra cannot guarantee confinement. The commission recommended completing the cover that was under construction and then installing a definitive cover composed of natural materials. The waste should not be removed: “Such an operation would have a radiological cost (…) and its inconveniences and risks are greater than the inconveniences and risks of storage.” Following this report, the government announced that Andra would draw up a new dossier to be submitted to a new public inquiry."
..I'm rarely serious.
EdF would be well advised to take a couple of hydroelectric dams, with expected lives of 300+ years (heavy maintenance every 50 or so years) and devote all revenues from these dams to nuke clean-up.
They will produce something of value for long enough, and any lost value from currency, etc. will be made up by future revenue.
Will the dedicated mission last so long ? That I do not know, but the resources can be dedicated to this goal.
Alan
Especially when you're not even wrong. The cost of storage are very small, especially with discounting.
If you cite either Green Peace or Storm Van Leeuwen in a nuclear discussion, you've already shown you care more about religion than science. The founder of Green Peace, Patrick Moore, left his organization for this very reason.
You could say the same about any industry funded source, too. But I'm sure these types of organisations are much less biased than Greenpeace, right?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Industry-funded_organizations
And Patrick Moore was not the founder of Greenpeace.
If they're so bad, it won't be hard to pull up sources to refute what they're saying, right?
Unless of course what they say is actually true, in which case you're just reduced to saying, "oh, they would say that, but they're all poopyheads."
Seriously, can we get beyond primary school in these discussions?
If they're wrong, demonstrate it to us. Otherwise, STFU.
The problem is its been demonstrated numerous times before, here on TOD and other places, such as an independant critique by the University of Melborne.
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Powe...
Your link isn't to a Melbourne University study, but to a discussion by a pro-nuclear group of a study by Vattenfall, a Swedish energy company who gets about a third of its energy from nuclear.
Asking a nuclear energy operator to assess its own EREOI, pollution and so on... well, I'm not surprised the result comes out nice for them.
It's like asking Bear Sterns to give a credit rating to its own held derivatives. We know how that ended up.
At least they've changed their tune a bit. Before they were claiming an EROEI of 93. Now they are saying a non-nuclear energy input of a little more than 1% of output. They are still trying to hide associated emissions though. That site has been debunked here a number of times. Perhaps they are listening. If they are getting the fuel from France then the actual EROEI is probably less than 7 or so calculated on the same basis as one would for a solar thermal plant: http://www.ases.org/divisions/electric/newsletters/2006-04.html#roi
Chris
Well, EROEI doesn't worry me much, so long as it's above 1:1. All other things being equal, if it's got a low EROEI then you just build more plants.
What matters is whether the source of the input energy is a depleting one or not, or whether it depletes an essentially renewable resource (like water or timber), and associated environmental issues such as aquifer depletion, greenhouse gases, and so on.
I realise that our current wasteful industrial society requires phenomenally high EROEIs - so that we have enough to waste on having our houses chilly in the summer and womb-like in the winter, enough for plastic wishbones and having our cars idle at drivethrough burger joints. But I don't give a shit if we lose all that, I just want us to have a modern civilisation with trains and internet and MRI scans and so on, and that basic civilisation requires a far lower EROEI than a wasteful one.
I think EROEI does relate to environmental issues but often in a secondary way. The scale of energy production is affected by EROEI and so low EROEI often means larger environmental impact. If we consider the emissions involved in ending fossil fuel use, how much fossil fuel do we need to invest to get a non-emitting energy source, then EROEI is important. But, the speed with which this can be done is more important and while EROEI can be a bottleneck, often it is other aspects that prove to be the hold up. Reactor cores are fabricated in Japan and the rate of production seems pretty low for example. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aaVMzCTMz3ms
As an aside, I was interested that they use scrap to make reactor cores but use ore of known source and quality for making swords. I wonder what quality assurance they can provide for reactor cores if they are using scrap?
But, with renewables, both EROEI and the efficiency of gathering the renewable energy are important. Very high EROEI for ethanol production does not help all that much with the problem that plants don't convert all that much of the sunshine that falls on them so that the environmental impact comes in where your concern is, overuse of land and water.
Chris
That's often true, yes. But it's not a perfect correlation. So really when discussing each technology, it's just as easy to say that it has X EROEI and has this or that particular environmental, social, and economic effect. If you try to use the EROEI for a shorthand then all the industry PR shills hired by netvocate will come along and nitpick, and it just gets tedious.
I notice that you've decided David Martin is a payed advocate for nuclear power while he denies it. His denial seems a little suspect since many of his posts disparage renewables with faint praise and often contain false information about renewables. However, it is possible to get him to stop responding to posts if you just stick to the truth for long enough.
EROEI does seem to draw a certain amount of schtick. I feel it helps with some aspects of understanding of energy issues though.
Chris
I think the accusations of "being a paid shill" exaggerates the value of this forum. I do not think the solar and wind proponents on this and other sites are "paid shills". The reason is that there is not enough money or influence in play. 40-80 people interacting on the discussions. The Euro oildrum getting about 3000-5000 pageviews per day. Only 10% or less really going through the discussions.
Minimum prices per click, often referred to as Costs Per Click (CPC), vary depending on the search engine, with some as low at $0.01. 500 pageviews for $5.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_per_click
The oildrum discussions are no follow. So almost no traffic is going anywhere. The people in the discussions are mostly not having opinions changed. Chris, MDsolar clearly has not changed his opinion - even when someone points out his EROEI errors. Everyone keeps pushing the same doomer or non-doomer points.
It is a gathering point for people to talk at each other.
Some information can be useful to newbies. But they can also get all the info from all sides in a less biased way from many internet sources (wikipedia etc...). So of the 40-80 people actively talking at each other and say ten times the readers only 10-25% might be influenced. With self selection, the majority are already peak oil etc... inclined.
The nuclear industry as other in the energy industry on lobbying politicians that can actually have impactful legislation.
http://depletedcranium.com/?p=480
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/indus.asp?Ind=E
Why would any company spend money to have someone shill here or on the internet ? They spend where the rubber meets the road. Getting the right senator or governor etc...
Anyone who is a paid advocate spending hours on theoildrum should be sacked for incompetence.
I have not made up my mind about David, other than he seems to doctor quotes similar to the way Steve Milloy fabricates stories. Your point about lobbying makes some sense, however PR runs a bit broader than that with efforts to sway public opinion through false fronts such as junkscience.com http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Milloy
Since it is the purpose of TOD to sway opinion on peak oil, a bit of parasitic use of the site on well funded issues such are global warming denial or nuclear power advocacy does not seem such a stretch as you make it out to be. And, David's obsequious style does smell of unspoken agendas. But, perhaps you are correct that TOD is so unimportant that everyone here, aside for Jerome, is an unvarnished amateur.
BTW, I have changed my views of EROEI and have acknowledged mcrab for the correction. If you have any other issues please feel free to raise them: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/01/eroie.html
Chris
At the end of the day, Chris, responding to 'Looney Toones' like you and Kiashu is a waste of time.
You sought to argue that nuclear reactors should be sited with reference to extreme projections for sea level rise in the next 300 years - when the reactors have a lifespan of 60 years and a decomissioning period of 20 years!
Just build the next reactor a little higher, already!
A case could be made that both yourself and Kiashu are shills for the coal industry, since the obvious lunacy of your other proposals leaves little alternative to the use of coal.
However, this is too unkind, as it is apparent to impartial observers that you both suffer from delusions and a disconnect with reality - btw,have either of you taken on board that my first choice is always conservation?
Since both of you argue from entrenched prior positions, and ignore anything which contradicts your prejudices, dialogue is unrealistic.
Your 'stick to the truth' is in fact 'impenetrable stupidity'.
Congratulations, may you both have your reward in whatever heaven bigots go to.
David,
It is customary for you to engage in name calling to evade core issues. What is at issue here is that you seem to have doctored a quotation from New Scientist to insert uncertainty about understanding of the mechanism of the termination of ice ages. You have not provided a link showing that the quote you gave is verbatim and does not have inserted language which was not present in the original that emphasizes uncertainty.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3610#comment-307816
This behavior is completely dishonest and ruins the possibility of a debate on issues as well as wasting people's time answering your disinformation. If you have a link showing that this is not what you have done, provide it now. If not, all that can be done is to point out that there is clear evidence that what you have to say is not spoken in sincerity.
The accusation that seems to come from a talking points list that those who do not favor nuclear power support coal is yet another example of this type of behavior. In fact, numerically, attempting to rely on nuclear power to avoid coal burning leads to more coal burning than pursuing the alternatives for the same purpose. Parroting nuclear industry talking points is not dialog or informative except to further expose the nature of your posts.
Chris
a decomissioning period of 20 years!
100 years (planned) to decommission is common#, as are life extensions. In addition, there are special cases like Brown's Ferry 1, that had a fire and it was about 30 years before it went back on-line, add a 20 year life extension and 112 years for decommissioning (what will be the "reality on the ground" in 2179, the possible "site clear" date for BF 1 ? A twelve year delay seems quite reasonable) and the "site clear" date will be MUCH later there than what the engineers estimated at the first concrete pour (about 1970).
# Worker exposure to radioactivity, with the resulting health effects, is much lower if one simply waits. So many utilities prefer to wait. Plus the fiction that monies in escrow will grow faster than inflation and any cost overruns in decommissioning will happen after the manager is long dead and gone.
You are losing credibility with ad hominem attacks and mis-using quotes, if true, even more so.
TOD is an intellectually rough place, a "meat grinder", but there are still understood rules.
I find the claim that waiting for nuke (the USA can, at best, build 8 new nukes in a decade) is a formula for more coal burning. In many ways nuclear advocates are the coal industries best friends (for at least the next 10 to 20 years, then the table may turn).
In the particular case of the UK, the current default solution of "wait for nuke" is the most expensive one, advocated by those that claim to be VERY concerned about costs. For the costs of blackouts FAR exceeds the costs of any renewable, and conservation
Best Hopes for reflection and cooling off,
Alan
Alan, it appears that you have not read some of the comments directed at me, including that I am shilling for the nuclear industry.
I re-iterate that I strongly support both conservation and renewables, and of course possible sea-level rises should be taken into account when assessing siting of new reactors.
It is rarely advisable though to base engineering decisions on the most extreme projections, particularly as is we have to we could build sea-walls and so on.
I suggest you look more carefully at the terms I have been addressed in before you put the accusation of ad hominen attacks at my door.
Alan,
The London Dumping Convention does not permit the dumping of nuclear waste at sea so I used a shortened decommisioning time consistent with Humboldt Bay 3. Admittedly, Humboldt was not so hot since it did not run all that long. Your emphasis on limiting worker exposure is probably the most important thing to consider. For present reactors like Seabrook and Turkey Point, shutting them down within a decade so that they have time to cool off before they have to be removed to higher ground might make the most sense. There is quite a bit of effort now attempting to understand how quickly the sea level will rise and it may be that we will have more specific estimates within a decade or so. The paleoclimate data suggest that we should expect around 5 meters by the end of the century but there are no adequate models yet to go from the specific land ice configuration to a sea level rise rate because we don't yet know how to model icesheet collapse. We should also be looking at the change in the seismic prognosis owing to the mass redistribution associated with sea level rise to find out if there are reactors in previously seismically calm areas that would need to be rebuilt to a higher seismic specification. Reactors that are further inland may also be affected by sea level rise.
Chris
Just do a google search on "Storm Van Leeuwen." `Nuff said.
In Chapter 11 of the Working Group 1 IPCC report: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter11.pdf
In figure 11.5, Italy can expect a 12% reduction in annual preciptation towards the end of the century and a 40% reduction during the summer months. France is already beginning to stuggle with lack of cooling water for its reactors in the summer time. Reliance on thermal generation that requires water cooling would seem to be a poor option especially for plants that are intended to be used beyond 2050 or so. Green Peace has pointed out problems for coastal nuclear sites in the UK owing to sea level rise which may also translate to Italy to some extent. The coastal Medeterranian could be 3 to 4.5o warmer as well leaving less room for mitigating the effects of thermal pollution if sea water can be used.
Chris
Easily mitigated by just increasing the discharge temperature in many rivers.
Not exactly a plausible opposition to nuclear power specificially because it simply means planning for anticipated sea level rise, and theres no plausible model that postulates a sea level rise so significant that capital costs become exhorbant. This is just noise from Greenpeace, who are ideologically opposed to nuclear power. What goes for nuclear power plants would also apply to all seaside infrastructure anyways and would be a rather minor problem compared to the much bigger picture of flooded cities.
Er, what? You're worried about thermal pollution in the sea? Several hundred gigawatts in something that regularly radiates several thousand terawatts?
As I've said before, you seem to be very uninformed about the issues involved in nuclear power. Thermal pollution is are already a problem and will grow as water resources dwindle. Increasing the temperature of rivers can kill them. Similarly, coastal sites can be damaged by thermal pollution. Green Peace is looking at the effects of six meters of sea level rise, a quite plausible level, and enough to make a number of sites unusable for nucelar power.
Chris
Damn you're insulting. Increasing the temperature of rivers can change them certainly, but I'd hardly call the Amazon a dead river even though its much warmer than rivers in Europe.
Greenpeace is hardly credible, and neither is six meters of sea level rise in anything less than several centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
I think posts like this illustrate the incredible complacency of many people. The first comment appears to think that the entire globe is the same, with the same niches carved out by exactly the same species and so making all habitats the same as an existing habitat will, therefore, have no impact. The second ridicules any argument based purely on the source of the argument, whilst citing Wikipedia (admittedly a useful source of info for the lay person) as an authoritative source for assuming that sea levels could not possibly rise quickly enough to cause a problem for a few generations.
I think posts like this illustrate you just don't like me or rather specifically my views.
The first rebuttal is a strawman. The second is completely ignorant of the credibility of Greenpeace's arguments (which wasn't even cited so how can I even rebut them) with respect to the IPCC or any climate models.
You simply said to heat the river more by raising the output discharge temperature. The system's thermodynamic efficiencies and temperature limits aside, you've unfortunately chosen to denigrate the positions of those who question your assertions. Your blinding allegiance to the nuclear industry's positions does little to convince others who are not in a similar (obviously vested) position.