Is it a myth that France has a successful nuclear industry?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ensabah6
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Industry Nuclear
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the assertion that France's nuclear industry is not as successful as commonly believed, citing significant cost overruns and delays in projects like the Olkiluoto reactor in Finland and the Flamanville project in France. Critics argue that financial issues are often attributed to regulatory challenges rather than inherent flaws in nuclear energy itself. The debate also touches on the complexities of nuclear waste management, with comparisons drawn to the failed Yucca Mountain project in the U.S. Some participants defend the nuclear industry by highlighting the substantial percentage of electricity generated from nuclear power in France, while others question the validity of the statistics used. Overall, the conversation reveals deep divisions on the perceived reliability and future of nuclear energy in France.
  • #31


mgb_phys said:
France also has a much smaller waste volume than the US because it reprocesses waste as MOX fuel, the US for various reasons doesn't allow reprocessing.
mgb_phys,

EXACTLY! One gets a LARGE reduction in the volume of the waste since spent nuclear fuel
is basically 96% U-238 that is no more radioactive than the day it was dug out of the ground.

The radioactive species are the fission products [ Strontium-90, Cesium-137 ] and the
capture products [ Plutonium-239, Plutonium-240, and other actinides ]. However, the fission products
and capture products constitute only a few percent of the spent fuel.

The reason the US doesn't reprocess is due to successful efforts by the anti-nukes with backing by
the Congress and various Administrations to oppose reprocessing. The whole strategy of the anti-nukes
is to DISALLOW reprocessing so that waste volume is maximized. The only allowed disposition for
spent fuel is geologic burial - and then the anti-nukes oppose the disposal site at Yucca Mountain.

The whole idea is to "constipate" the nuclear fuel cycle. The anti-nukes hope that if spent fuel can not
be reprocessed or disposed of - in fact can not even be transported from the reactor site - then sooner
or later the reactor operator will have no place to put additional waste and will not be able to discharge
and refuel the reactor. The reactor would have to shutdown - which is the goal of the anti-nukes.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
9K
  • · Replies 131 ·
5
Replies
131
Views
29K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
10K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
Replies
31
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K