×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

France To Invest One Billion Euros In Nuclear Power

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the but-nuculars-will-make-mah-bebbe-a-commie dept.

Earth 308

An anonymous reader writes "France will invest one billion euros in future nuclear power development while boosting research into security, President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Monday." The Guardian has a more detailed article. It's not a huge investment, but it is nice to see continued commitment to Generation IV reactors by at least one Western country.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

308 comments

GO FRANCE (-1, Flamebait)

rbpOne (2184720) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602140)

And people call those cheese eatin' surrender monkeys weak..

Re:GO FRANCE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36602236)

I don't think swearing is inadequate here. Fuck off.

Got any words for this, MDSOLAR? (3, Insightful)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602386)

Interesting. France's going to be selling nuclear power to Germany for the rest of our lives. The French are smart people. Not only have they weighed out all the environmental concerns (don't get me started about coal), but these guys are really going to cash in on energy sales. Props to you, France!

Get in line... (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602424)

Italy is in the same boat... France will be selling power to all of Europe. Perhaps they are going to position themselves as the European energy broker...

Re:Got any words for this, MDSOLAR? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602944)

A second bonus for the Germans who say no to nuclear power, but are willing to buy it.

Re:Got any words for this, MDSOLAR? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602998)

Does it really matter? After all I bet a lot of those turbines and electronic equipment will say "Made in Germany".

Re:GO FRANCE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36602238)


They will be weak when all that radiation causes TEH SUBLUXATIONZZZ!!!! lol.

Cool idea I had today (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602920)

Today I got a good idea for nuclear power plants. Build them on a raised platform above ground, like an oil rig sits above the sea floor (but not so high of course), but instead of using solid struts, use flexible ones or giant shock absorbers combined with giant caster wheels in parabolic pits. This way earthquakes are no longer a problem and the risk of damage from tsunamis or floods is decreased. Also with a limited number of ramps leading up to it, security becomes easier to manage.

Next, install a metal drain pan that covers the very bottom of the platform. This way if something is leaking out (for some reason...maybe it got hit by a 9/11-style attack), you'll know for sure and you'll know right away, and you'll have an easy way to collect any hazardous waste.

Now would this be horribly expensive? Seems like a great idea.

They will make a fortune (5, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602180)

They will make a fortune selling power to all those countries "phasing out" nuclear power with no plan to replace it but the underpants gnomes.

Re:They will make a fortune (4, Insightful)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602270)

Yep. Spend a billion Euro now, get a nice return on that from Germany and Italy, because they can't meet energy demands.

Re:They will make a fortune (-1, Troll)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602428)

Yep. Spend a billion Euro now, get a nice return on that from Germany and Italy, because they can't meet energy demands.

What happens when France becomes a majority Islamic country and the USA takes away their nukes? I'm not trying to troll here, its a serious concern that their capital expenditures seem to be colliding with their combination of demographics and the geopolitical environment.

Re:They will make a fortune (1, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602662)

No worries. The U.S. intends to keep Sarkozy and pro-American successors in power from now on. Anyone who challenges them will suddenly decide to become a rapist or child molester, or whatever shit is needed to get them out of the way.

Re:They will make a fortune (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#36603016)

ManBearPig for President?

Re:They will make a fortune (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#36603084)

No, but Sarkozy's hand-picked finance minister and American favorite Christine Lagarde was just named head of the IMF. It seems that her successor, who was critical of the value of the U.S. dollar and pulling ahead of the polls in the French election, suddenly decided to take up a new career in sexual assault at a New York hotel. How fortunate for her.

Re:They will make a fortune (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602672)

Or what about when the grays invade?

France will not be a majority Islamic nation anytime soon.

Re:They will make a fortune (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602834)

France will not be a majority Islamic nation anytime soon.

Depending on political leanings, and I suppose the age of the quoted estimate, the answer seems to be around 1/3 to 2/3 of a reactor lifetime...

Maybe not "soon" relative to fashion trends or something, but quite relevant to plant construction.

Re:They will make a fortune (2)

NoOneInParticular (221808) | more than 2 years ago | (#36603134)

Yes, but by that time the US will be lead by the Christian Taliban, and the country will have forgotten how to build nuclear reactors. The US will have surrendered to Quebec.

Re:They will make a fortune (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36602688)

And in what universe would this be?

Re:They will make a fortune (2)

mridoni (228377) | more than 2 years ago | (#36603062)

Not really an issue for Italy since the last reactor was shut dowin in 1990

Re:They will make a fortune (1)

sa1lnr (669048) | more than 2 years ago | (#36603166)

And who do you think is going to be building all those new reactors in the UK?

Re:They will make a fortune (1)

bkmoore (1910118) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602272)

The underpants gnomes...that's the nuclear waste disposal plan.

Re:They will make a fortune (5, Informative)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602358)

Except that France has a reprocessing facility that dwarfs other countries' capacity to get useable fuel out of the "waste."

Nice job not knowing any facts though, and spewing the same non-issues like a good parrot.

Re:They will make a fortune (4, Interesting)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602310)

They will make a fortune selling power to all those countries "phasing out" nuclear power with no plan to replace it but the underpants gnomes.

... which will work fine until those countries have built enough windmills, dams and solar arrays to no longer depend on France.

... and then France will have a problem: indeed, it buys as much electricity from abroad than it sells there. Nukes can only supply base load, and for peak France mostly relies on buying back from other countries (who are constructing storage facilities as we speak).

If the French aren't careful, they might be in a world of hurt twenty years from now...

Re:They will make a fortune (2)

Ruke (857276) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602350)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but why can nuclear power only supply base-load, instead of peak as well? I've certainly heard that solar and wind are unsuitable to supply base load, as they're not terrifically reliable, but never anything about nuclear being unable to scale to peak load.

Re:They will make a fortune (5, Informative)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602490)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but why can nuclear power only supply base-load, instead of peak as well? I've certainly heard that solar and wind are unsuitable to supply base load, as they're not terrifically reliable, but never anything about nuclear being unable to scale to peak load.

It isn't practical to rapidly change the load on nuke reactors, because it takes a significant amount of time to ramp up and down power output. Also, it basically costs the same to run whether you are at 10% capacity or 100% capacity, so it makes sense to run them as near to full capacity as possible. Contrast that with something like a gas-fired powerplant, where you can ramp generation quickly and you are pretty much only paying for the gas you are burning.

Of course, France announced at the same time as this announcement that they will be going ahead with something like 1.5 billion euros funding renewable resources over the same period, so it isn't like they are putting all their eggs in the nuclear basket - just not abandoning it entirely as others are doing.

Re:They will make a fortune (5, Insightful)

EdZ (755139) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602584)

A good combination would then to build your new plants near high-altitude lakes. Not only can you pump water up into the lakes to store energy during lulls (and let it flow out through turbine generators during peaks), you can use them as a gravity-fed water source in case of off-site-and-on-site power failure scenarios.The turbines could also act as additional on-site power generators, giving you even more redundancy (off-site grid power, on-site diesel, on-site battery, on-site water turbine, on-site gravity-feed).

Re:They will make a fortune (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 2 years ago | (#36603038)

This sounds great until you have a dam fail and take out your plant.

Considering the safety of dams, I wouldn't want to put much of value under one.

Re:They will make a fortune (2)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602686)

Why not run the plant at some kind of overproduction level? The overproduction could be used for water electrolysis, aluminum smelting or some other energy-intensive task that could be scaled back to meet peak power demands.

Water electrolysis could supply hydrogen which could be burned or turned to methane for longer term storage and used to also provide peak power.

Re:They will make a fortune (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602808)

Because then you are building a reactor bigger than you need. What bean counter is going to ok that?

It is cheaper to make hydrogen from natural gas and buy that to burn for peak power than to bother with making an oversized plant.

Re:They will make a fortune (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36602810)

Aluminum makes sense, but tends to be done near hydroelectric sources (cheap power). Electrolysis isn't very efficient https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency

Re:They will make a fortune (2)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602886)

These reactors are able to generate hydrogen via there temperatures alone. It would seem rather feasible to generate hydrogen and store it in large quantities to run gas turbines for peek load. Just place the peak load plant next to the nuke.

Re:They will make a fortune (3, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602926)

You do not want to burn hydrogen in a turbine, you do not want to store hydrogen. It embrittles everything. It leaks through anything. It is an explosive hazard. It would be far cheaper and safer to just buy and burn natural gas.

Re:They will make a fortune (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602932)

Why not run the plant at some kind of overproduction level? The overproduction could be used for water electrolysis, aluminum smelting or some other energy-intensive task that could be scaled back to meet peak power demands.

Water electrolysis could supply hydrogen which could be burned or turned to methane for longer term storage and used to also provide peak power.

Intermittent "valley" purchasers will not pay higher normal rates, to the point where it doesn't make economic sense to bother offering to them.

A large capital expenditure plant doesn't make any money to pay the stockholders when you cut off the power... if you pull the plug 25% of the time, they just lost 25% of their gross revenues and probably more than 25% of their profits... So that means electricity has to be, roughly, over a quarter of their expenses and has to practically be free, to interest them.

The other thing is, at least short term, aluminum refineries Really do not like power interruptions. Worst case scenario is the molten Al solidifies in the cells. Ooops. Not sure what they do then, jackhammer it out? Giant heating torches? Now copper electro-refineries ARE a good candidate, because nothing too awful happens if you pull the plug momentarily.

No profits for those poor investors? (1)

nido (102070) | more than 2 years ago | (#36603196)

A large capital expenditure plant doesn't make any money to pay the stockholders when you cut off the power... if you pull the plug 25% of the time, they just lost 25% of their gross revenues and probably more than 25% of their profits... So that means electricity has to be, roughly, over a quarter of their expenses and has to practically be free, to interest them.

It's very important that the investors always get their cut, or they won't let us have any toys.

Nikola Tesla may have been right about everything else, but we're quite fortunate that he was wrong about his wanting to extract energy from the "wheelwork of nature [google.com] ". Imagine the chaos if "investors" had to support themselves with work instead of "investment".

Imagine the chaos if THAT black swan took flight. :)

Re:They will make a fortune (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 2 years ago | (#36603220)

Well you can change the power load, actually. You can do it by pumping water in faster or slower, or by fiddling with the fuel rods to produce more or less power. It depends on the reactor type (PWR and BWR respectively). France, in fact, does just this because they have more nuke capacity than baseload. The term is "load-following capability". The French PWRs can go from 30 to 100% capacity in about half an hour. We even do some of this in the US, apparently, around Chicago - which also has plenty of nuke power, too much to run overnight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following#Boiling_water_reactors [wikipedia.org]

Re:They will make a fortune (2)

TheSync (5291) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602548)

Nuclear power plants can not rapidly change power output. Fast changes in power level can lead to instability due to short-lived fission products that don't get burned up with enough neutron flux.

Re:They will make a fortune (5, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602550)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but why can nuclear power only supply base-load, instead of peak as well? I've certainly heard that solar and wind are unsuitable to supply base load, as they're not terrifically reliable, but never anything about nuclear being unable to scale to peak load.

The term you don't know to google for is "xenon poisoning" or the "iodine pit"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_pit [wikipedia.org]

Using the most non-technical terms I can, the "ashes" from the "fire" choke it from cranking up for a couple hours when you change the power level.

Naval reactors work around it by including massive extra reactivity, meaning you have to be really freaking careful when running them. The average Homer Simpson is probably ... unprepared for their rather spirited performance. The other problem is, for the sake of argument, building a naval reactor 5 times bigger than it "needs" to be is affordable. Really, it is! But building a nuke 5 times bigger than "necessary" for a base load plant will make the brains of the bean counters in finance go prompt-critical.

Re:They will make a fortune (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 2 years ago | (#36603008)

As an example of what happens when a reactor is attempted to be restarted from an iodine pit by someone not competent enough to do so - Chernobyl.

Re:They will make a fortune (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602596)

The trouble with nukes(true to a lesser extent of coal and oil, not true of gas turbine, not true of hydro(though some different constraints apply)) is that they do not take kindly to rapid adjustments in output power. Even when SCRAMed, they take a while to cool down, and they are sufficiently expensive(both absolutely and in terms of the ratio between capital costs + fixed costs of operation vs. variable and fuel costs) that if you aren't running them at full output except when servicing them, you are shoveling money away.

Because of that, you try to set them up so that you have nuclear capacity less than or equal to the lowest continuous(base) load on your grid, and run it at full power all the time. Then, during times of heavier usage, you fire up the cheap, fast-responding; but comparatively expensive per unit fuel gas units, or increase the flow rate at the hydro plants, or whatever.

If it came to it, you could build nukes to match your peak load; but (since you can't scale them up and down fast enough to match demand) you would have to generate continuously near peak, and then figure out something to do with the excess during off-peak. That isn't an impossible problem(if you have the geography for it, you can used pumped hydro or pressurized gas storage as relatively inefficient; but not hopeless, 'batteries', or you can try to align the demands of certain power-heavy industries toward off-peak times, or try to reduce the peak/base swing by increasing adoption of thermal storage systems in building climate control and other measures, or, worst case, just burning the excess in some huge resistors); but it isn't ideal.

Nuclear can scale as high as you wish to build it, it just can't adjust output very fast, so you either run it higher than needed in off-peak, or run it at baseload levels all the time.

Re:They will make a fortune (2)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 2 years ago | (#36603090)

Most of these new systems are designed around the ability to generate hydrogen as fuel so you can shift to producing that off peak.

Re:They will make a fortune (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602982)

It's very difficult to change the output of a reactor rapidly.

France and various navies (nuclear propulsion) are the only people who do it.

It can be done safely (as France and various navies have proven), but if done by someone who isn't competent, Bad Things (Chernobyl) happen.

However, even if it can be done safely, it is not by any means optimal to run nuke plants in a load-following mode.

That said - it's a lot easier to create storage technologies to handle relatively predictable demand variations than completely unpredictable supply variations. With wind and solar, you must MASSIVELY overbuild generating capacity and storage capacity.

Re:They will make a fortune (2)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602600)

"... which will work fine until those countries have built enough windmills, dams and solar arrays to no longer depend on France."

I.e. "never". Or at least not until 2050, which is close enough. And by that time France will have newer and better reactors, most likely outperforming other alternative sources. Oh, and the world's first fusion power plant is also being built in France.

"... and then France will have a problem: indeed, it buys as much electricity from abroad than it sells there. Nukes can only supply base load, and for peak France mostly relies on buying back from other countries (who are constructing storage facilities as we speak)."

France has load-following powerplants, so no worries here.

Re:They will make a fortune (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36603088)

Solar and wind can't even supply base load. Germany with 21000 wind turbine provide 6.2% of its production. Only 315000 wind turbines to go. This is going to be so efficient in terms of land use.

Re:They will make a fortune (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36602432)

They won't be making a fortune, they will be ensuring that their national security is more stable than almost any nation out there:

1: They won't be depending on Russia for natural gas. German citizens would freeze to death if Russia decides to shut the gas off, so Germany has ruined its national security.

2: They will have energy where others won't. While the US and China piss on each other over oil and coal, French independence and freedom from the Middle Eastern turmoil is assured.

3: They can do more energy-inefficient things such as thermal polymerization to turn garbage into oil ready for use for plastics or fuel. Similar with desalination. A nuke plant combined with a desalination plant assures France will not be affected by droughts.

4: Nuclear research can be sold. Eventually most countries will go nuclear when they realize it is that, or turning off the lights. North Korea can do either, but most nations pretty much will be dragged kicking and screaming into the nuclear age sooner or later. French firms will have a complete advantage in this department because their country didn't give into Luddite fears or Big Oil/Big Coal's siren songs.

5: Once nuclear power gets sufficient research behind it, it will be far more useful than now. Steam engines were VERY dangerous for a long time until R&D eventually fixed a lot of issues. Same with internal combustion engines. It took R&D to figure out how to minimize damage if a rod throws. Imagine if the people working with steam thought it was too dangerous to continue.

Oh, and the 1 billion Euros... that's a lot more than 1 billion dollars. Euros are immune to inflation, while dollars get printed on a daily basis.

France... (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602524)

1) Spend 1$ Billion dollars in future nuclear power development
2) ???
3) Profit!!!

Re:France... (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#36603098)

Because God knows what we could do with all that electricity! What, run a few BILLION of those newfangled electric lights? They're dangerous, I tell you!

Re:They will make a fortune (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36602660)

Well, actually this is indeed an reaction to the german nuclear exit. But from the opposite rationale: France actually imports energy from Germany during certain times of the year, but that will change if the German overcapacity decreases. Even when we do import energy from abroad, that usually has to do with market prices, not with insufficient capacity. It's just not as simple as some people like you to believe.

Re:They will make a fortune (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36602848)

Every time there's a post about European countries phasing out nuclear power and how France is still building power plants some one makes the exact same statement and always gets modded up. First off you do realize there was electricity before nuclear power? There's no chicken and egg debate. I know we are all supposed to believe that nuclear power is the only option for the future but even it has a limited life. Even the most extreme quotes I've heard refer to a thousand years where as some of the more conservative mention three or four decades if we switch entirely to nuclear. Yes I know breeder reactors and yes I know Thorium reactors. Hey Fusion is around the corner as well. The problem is all the existing plants are aging fast. It'll take decades to license, build and get on line enough to replace the aging reactors let alone the hundreds required to replace fossil fuels. Nuclear isn't a quick fix and is hardly a cheap solution. France is spending a billion Euros on one plant and we need hundreds let alone operating costs then costs of storing waste. There are faster cleaner solutions that don't keep us tied to the corporations that own the nuclear power plants. If nuclear is allowed to become a monopoly what do you do when they double the price?

Re:They will make a fortune (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602870)

They will make a fortune selling power

First they'll have to make a nuclear plant that turns a profit without public subsidies.

Remember "Safe, clean and too cheap to meter"? That was forty years ago. We still haven't even come close.

Re:They will make a fortune (2)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602910)

Yup, Germany is going to be at the mercy of either France (nuclear) or Russia (gas).

Re:They will make a fortune (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36603024)

Not if they are willing to burn coal. Which if either of those makes noise they will do

Vote right wing. (-1, Offtopic)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602192)

And enjoy getting 3-striked out of the internet, going nuclear while the world abandons, and a whole other bunch of shit WITHOUT anything being done in the lines of what you voted for : immigration problems ? nothing. cultural fragmentation ? nothing. tougher international policies ? nothing.

it is appalling that, despite the right wing parties promise about tough right wing stuff, they never fulfill their promise, instead concentrate all their effort to fucking the citizens for the profit of the already wealthy and corporations,

but,

people STILL vote for them for the things they promised, but NEVER have done, over and over again.

please, someone, explain that. what is it ? short-term memory ? forgetfulness ? identification ? what mechanic causes that ?

Re:Vote right wing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36602282)

But investing in nuclear power is a good thing. The rest of the world is wrong; it's been said a thousand times that the chief reason nuclear plants fail is because they aren't replaced, so I hardly see this as a bad thing.

Re:Vote right wing. (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602874)

it's been said a thousand times that the chief reason nuclear plants fail is because they aren't replaced.

Exactly. The plants in the news are like saying a car with 500,000 miles on it broke. Really? What do you mean we can't build a new car? OK. Patch it one more time.

Re:Vote right wing. (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602286)

Politicians are similar, in many respects, to companies that derive their revenue from advertising.

They are, in truth, extremely focused on customers service. It's just that voters aren't the customers.

Re:Vote right wing. (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602440)

Except the right wing in France isn't right-wing. Rather it's left of centre, with huge cultural blind spots as much as the left. Just not as bad.

Re:Vote right wing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36602682)

The world to the US: you are not the belly button of the world and you don't get to define what is and what is not right wing in other countries. It'd be as stupid for Castro to tell you the communist party of america is right wing.

Re:Vote right wing. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602760)

No, it is right of center. The US center is practically far right, and seems to keep slipping that way.

Re:Vote right wing. (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#36603146)

Keep telling yourself that. If we were slipping to the "right", we would have a shrinking government, not a growing one.

Re:Vote right wing. (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36603206)

Keep telling yourself that.

Right does not mean small government, nor does left mean large. An anarcho-communist commume would be far left and have nearly no government.

Right and left describe beliefs not size of government. You can have right wing and large government which fascism is one example.

Re:Vote right wing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36602466)

Who else are you going to vote for ? The left wing party who only talk about the party internal politics who no one else cares about. The far right whose economic program would bankrupt france even faster than the current government current policies do ? the trotskysts that wants a bloody revolution ? The greens who haven't been ecologists since maoists entered and hijacked the movement ? Not many like our current president but all current candidates suck anyway.

Re:Vote right wing. (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602576)

tougher international policies ? nothing.

Policies about what? Or is being tough an end in itself?

please, someone, explain that.

Team spirit.

Re:Vote right wing. (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#36603076)

1. nuclear power is the only hope we have of fulfilling the planet's energy needs. getting everything from solar, wind, and hydro is a silly left wing tree hugger fantasy. in fact, nuclear power is only the first step. step two involves getting a stable mining operation in space. that's a 200 year process right there.

2. from what I've read, immigration problems, 'cultural fragmentation', and being tough on international relations are NOT leftwing strong suits. they're the ones appeasing middle eastern 'peaceful invasion' under the guise of 'multi culturalism' and 'community cohesion.' granted, the right rarely lives up to its blustering, but expecting left wingers to take strong anti-immigration stances is insanity. it goes against their entire ideology.

3. people still vote left despite its failures too. what does that tell you about the problem? maybe people are just stupid.

at least there will be a good side... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36602262)

At least there will be a good side if there is another nuclear catastrophe as in Japan recently. France will up its investment to one TRIIIIIIILION EUROS!

Why not? (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602266)

They'll make a fortune selling excess to the Germans.

Doing it better (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602398)

Quite. Although the germans have said they won't use nuclear power - they will. It's just that they'll use FRENCH nuclear power, since the french can - apparently - do it better than the germans.

Current score (1)

nemasu (1766860) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602298)

So I guess the current score is 2 - 2:
For:
France
UK [slashdot.org]

Against:
Italy [slashdot.org]
Germany [slashdot.org]

Re:Current score (4, Funny)

Goose In Orbit (199293) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602354)

That line-up looks awfully familiar...

Re:Current score (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602540)

That line-up looks awfully familiar...

I heard Japan will be looking to its neighbors, the greater east-Asian sphere if you will, to help meet future energy needs.

Re:Current score (1)

toddles666 (814422) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602678)

I heard Japan will be looking to its neighbors, the greater east-Asian sphere if you will, to help meet future energy needs.

Will they be Co-Prosperous though?

Way to go Brian Clevinger (2, Funny)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602360)

I mean, I love Final Fantasy comics as much as the next guy, but apparently France is batshit insane for it!

Solar (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36602396)

It's not a huge investment, but it is nice to see continued commitment to Generation IV reactors by at least one Western country.

If it's only chomp change, where is the 1 billion euro for solar?

Please, the pro-nuke lobby has received enough indulgence.

Re:Solar (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602930)

If it's only chomp change, where is the 1 billion euro for solar?

At the end of the article you didn't read. 1.35 billion for renewables... Doh!

Noo! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36602418)

France is a western country?

I need to go and kill myself now.

Security for Reactors? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36602476)

Don't connect them to the internet, duh.

Hydrogen Production? (3, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602482)

An international task force is developing six nuclear reactor technologies for deployment between 2020 and 2030. Four are fast neutron reactors.
All of these operate at higher temperatures than today's reactors. In particular, four are designated for hydrogen production. [world-nuclear.org]

Don't we have a crapload of unused base load power in this world which we could use for hydrogen production?

Re:Hydrogen Production? (1)

kaiser423 (828989) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602566)

Don't we have a crapload of unused base load power in this world which we could use for hydrogen production?

No.

This is good news (5, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602702)

At least someone isn't giving up.

Still, the lessons of Fukushima Daiichi are serious. There are a sizable number of reactors out there which will melt down if they lose cooling pump power. (The reactors and the pumps at Fukushima survived the earthquake and tsunami. Cooling continued until the battery bank ran down, then stopped. All the damage shown in photos is from later hydrogen explosions.) That's unacceptable. There has to be backup passive cooling.

All plants should have catalytic hydrogen recombiners [iaea.org] to prevent hydrogen explosions. There's no excuse for not having those. That should have been fixed after TMI, decades ago.

Long term storage of used fuel rods on site has got to stop. After initial cooling, those need to go to dry cask storage.

The really tough issue is evacuation zones. Indian Point in New York has 19 million people within 50 miles.

Re:This is good news (2)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 2 years ago | (#36603204)

"All plants should have catalytic hydrogen recombiners [iaea.org] to prevent hydrogen explosions. There's no excuse for not having those. "

All plants should have some fucking insurance, what's the excuse for that?

Yea, it is always nice to see .. (1)

roguegramma (982660) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602704)

Yea, it is always nice to see reactors being built close to other countries borders to minimize risk.

Re:Yea, it is always nice to see .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36602922)

minimize

minimize line losses of power sold to those countries.

Re:Yea, it is always nice to see .. (4, Funny)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602962)

Hey it works great in SimCity! Industry and nuclear plants should always be located on the edge of the map. You halve the pollution, halve the risk.

Thorium Cycle? (2)

screwzloos (1942336) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602734)

I wonder if any of that money will go towards moving away from uranium 235? If anything, France would be a good candidate to show the western world that thorium 232 is a viable fuel source. All we'd lose is the plutonium and we really don't need more nuclear weapons anyways. Just about everything that sucks about using uranium nuclear fuel (scarcity, goes critical if not cooled, needs to be enriched, unusable waste) would go away.

Re:Thorium Cycle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36602880)

It would be cool, but only one reactor in India uses thorium, and it is not as the primary fissile material.

Nuclear power needs a lot of R&D -- there is just a lot of promise behind it, once people are out of earshot of Big Oil/Big Coal's droning.

"boosting security" = preventing disasters? (2)

Wireless Joe (604314) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602828)

I'll charge them 1% of whatever they're going to spend on "boosting security" to advise that they do not build reactors in flood planes or on fault lines.

Re:"boosting security" = preventing disasters? (1)

Wireless Joe (604314) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602882)

Whoops! Flood planes should be flood plains; though floods do tend to congregate on low-lying planes.

More like 1 billion Euros for Areva (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602890)

This is probably going to be more like 1 billion Euros for Areva [areva.com] . As others have said at least some first world country will be developing the next generation nuclear reactors.

Credit where credit is due (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#36602978)

So it's Germany retreating in fear while France attacks the problem? What a change 70 years make.

You can bet.. (2)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 2 years ago | (#36603002)

You can bet that France and Germany are going into the Nuclear energy business together, only the reactors will be in France. Must be that the political landscape makes this kind of shell game plausible to the German people (let's move the reactors over the border) after all French fallout wouldn't dare cross into Germany.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...