Showing posts with label France. Show all posts
Showing posts with label France. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
French nuclear policy clouded in secrecy
Comment: Virginia should not be kissing up to the French, we want true green power, not nuke power! Just listen to the excuses the French makes about the problems in Nuke power!
October 2009
Several kilos of plutonium have been discovered at an Areva nuclear plant in Cadarache, in France.
Environmentalists have long complained that the nuclear industry, which fulfills 75 percent of France's energy needs, is shrouded in secret:
Click Title or Read the complete post at link below:
http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-4401971/aHR0cDovL3d3dy50cnV2ZW8uY29tL251Y2xlYXItZW5lcmd5LWZyZW5jaC1udWNsZWFyLXBvbGljeS1jbG91ZGVkLWluL2lkLzE4NDYzNzQ4NzY=
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Finnish TVO set for long row with Areva, Siemens
by Staff Writers
Helsinki (AFP) Oct 20, 2009
Finnish utility TVO said Tuesday it expected a lengthy dispute with France's Areva and Germany's Siemens over cost over-runs and delays in their construction of a Finnish nuclear reactor.
The plant being built in Olkiluoto, western Finland, was originally scheduled to start operating this year, but the project has fallen more than three years behind its original schedule, prompting a bitter fight between the three companies.
In a financial report for January-September published on Monday, TVO said it had demanded that Areva and Siemens pay compensation of around 1.4 billion euros (2.1 billion dollars) for the delays.
Meanwhile Areva and Siemens have asked for around one billion euros from TVO, arguing that the project has encountered "more rigorous security requirements" than initially foreseen.
Last week TVO said the new reactor's start date could be delayed beyond June 2012 and said it had asked for a new timetable from Areva and Siemens.
The Finnish firm posted in the first nine months of this year a loss of 30.4 million euros on turnover of 226 million euros.
Read whole article:
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/Finnish_TVO_set_for_long_row_with_Areva_Siemens_999.html
Helsinki (AFP) Oct 20, 2009
Finnish utility TVO said Tuesday it expected a lengthy dispute with France's Areva and Germany's Siemens over cost over-runs and delays in their construction of a Finnish nuclear reactor.
The plant being built in Olkiluoto, western Finland, was originally scheduled to start operating this year, but the project has fallen more than three years behind its original schedule, prompting a bitter fight between the three companies.
In a financial report for January-September published on Monday, TVO said it had demanded that Areva and Siemens pay compensation of around 1.4 billion euros (2.1 billion dollars) for the delays.
Meanwhile Areva and Siemens have asked for around one billion euros from TVO, arguing that the project has encountered "more rigorous security requirements" than initially foreseen.
Last week TVO said the new reactor's start date could be delayed beyond June 2012 and said it had asked for a new timetable from Areva and Siemens.
The Finnish firm posted in the first nine months of this year a loss of 30.4 million euros on turnover of 226 million euros.
Read whole article:
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/Finnish_TVO_set_for_long_row_with_Areva_Siemens_999.html
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
France dumps nuclear waste in Siberia, reports say
Comment: The Fairy Tale Nuke France is not so great are they, come on Virginia, kick them out of our state!
Nuclear 13.10.2009
Nuclear waste from France has been sent to Siberia for storage.
According to the French daily newspaper Liberation and Franco-German television broadcaster Arte, France's electricity company EDF has sent 108 tons of uranium to Siberia since the mid-1990s. .
EDF said it sends uranium left over from nuclear plant production in France to Russia to be treated so that it can be used again.
Ten to 20 percent of the uranium came back to France to be used in French power plants, an EDF spokeswoman said Monday. A company official denied that waste was left outdoors.
Liberation based its information on an eight-month investigation which was broadcast by Arte on Tuesday.
Legal loophole
The container was allegedly shipped by boat from Le Havre in northern France to the Siberian atom complex "Tomsk-7," located 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles) away. This was only possible due to a legal loophole: In Russia, depleted uranium, recharged uranium and plutonium are not considered atomic waste but "radioactive material," according to the report by journalist Laure Noualhat.
Therefore, the shipment to Russia was not officially treated as an atomic waste transport overseas - that would have been forbidden by law.
France's ecology minister, Chantal Jouanno, has called for an investigation into the case.
Anti-nuclear power movement group "Sortir du Nucleaire" accused Jouanno of trying to win time by announcing an investigation. The group has demanded that the atomic waste be brought back from Russia.
France, like Germany, has not yet found a location to permanently store nuclear waste underground. French nuclear authorities are considering permanently storing the waste generated in the past three decades and the waste produced in the future near Bure in eastern France, 500 meters (1,640 feet) below ground.
sst/AFP/AP
Editor: Kate Bowen
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4786672,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf
Nuclear 13.10.2009
Nuclear waste from France has been sent to Siberia for storage.
According to the French daily newspaper Liberation and Franco-German television broadcaster Arte, France's electricity company EDF has sent 108 tons of uranium to Siberia since the mid-1990s. .
EDF said it sends uranium left over from nuclear plant production in France to Russia to be treated so that it can be used again.
Ten to 20 percent of the uranium came back to France to be used in French power plants, an EDF spokeswoman said Monday. A company official denied that waste was left outdoors.
Liberation based its information on an eight-month investigation which was broadcast by Arte on Tuesday.
Legal loophole
The container was allegedly shipped by boat from Le Havre in northern France to the Siberian atom complex "Tomsk-7," located 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles) away. This was only possible due to a legal loophole: In Russia, depleted uranium, recharged uranium and plutonium are not considered atomic waste but "radioactive material," according to the report by journalist Laure Noualhat.
Therefore, the shipment to Russia was not officially treated as an atomic waste transport overseas - that would have been forbidden by law.
France's ecology minister, Chantal Jouanno, has called for an investigation into the case.
Anti-nuclear power movement group "Sortir du Nucleaire" accused Jouanno of trying to win time by announcing an investigation. The group has demanded that the atomic waste be brought back from Russia.
France, like Germany, has not yet found a location to permanently store nuclear waste underground. French nuclear authorities are considering permanently storing the waste generated in the past three decades and the waste produced in the future near Bure in eastern France, 500 meters (1,640 feet) below ground.
sst/AFP/AP
Editor: Kate Bowen
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4786672,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Kazatomprom; Areva join forces to market nuclear fuel
Comment: Taking advantage of the poor!
The pair are aiming at the Asian market
Posted: Tuesday , 06 Oct 2009
ALMATY (Reuters) -
France's Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote) and Kazakh state nuclear company Kazatomprom said on Tuesday they were setting up a joint venture to market uranium fuel and were considering joint production.
The venture, IFASTAR, will research the Asian market for nuclear fuel and run a feasibility study for a project to produce fuel in Kazakhstan, the companies said in a statement.
Areva will have a controlling stake in IFASTAR.
"This confirms the strategy of Areva and Kazatomprom, the companies producing about 30% of global uranium output, to strengthen positions in Asia," the companies said in a joint statement.
They said planned joint nuclear fuel production at the Kazakh Ulbinsky plant would be handled by a separate venture and Kazatomprom would have a controlling stake in it. (Writing by Olzhas Auyezov; Editing by Greg Mahlich)
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page504?oid=90286&sn=Detail
The pair are aiming at the Asian market
Posted: Tuesday , 06 Oct 2009
ALMATY (Reuters) -
France's Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote) and Kazakh state nuclear company Kazatomprom said on Tuesday they were setting up a joint venture to market uranium fuel and were considering joint production.
The venture, IFASTAR, will research the Asian market for nuclear fuel and run a feasibility study for a project to produce fuel in Kazakhstan, the companies said in a statement.
Areva will have a controlling stake in IFASTAR.
"This confirms the strategy of Areva and Kazatomprom, the companies producing about 30% of global uranium output, to strengthen positions in Asia," the companies said in a joint statement.
They said planned joint nuclear fuel production at the Kazakh Ulbinsky plant would be handled by a separate venture and Kazatomprom would have a controlling stake in it. (Writing by Olzhas Auyezov; Editing by Greg Mahlich)
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page504?oid=90286&sn=Detail
Saturday, September 26, 2009
European Expert: U.S. Policymakers Are "As Wrong As They Can Be" About the French Experience With Nuclear Power
Map of the French nuclear power plants
Comment: No to France, No to Nukes!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 15, 2009
CONTACT: Alis Aaron Wolf, NIRS 703-276-3265
Marignac Says "Far From Being a Model, France Should be a Powerful Cautionary Tale for the U.S. about the Folly of a Headlong Rush into More Nuclear Power".
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Sep tember 15, 2009
U.S. policy makers are in the grips of "dangerous and costly illusions" if they think that France is a model showing how nuclear power could be implemented aggressively in the United States, according to Yves Marignac, a leading international consultant on nuclear energy issues and the executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris.
In visits this week with state and federal officials, Marignac is debunking the myth of the so-called "French nuclear model" that is being touted as a blueprint for the revival of the embattled nuclear power industry in the U.S. His visit comes at a particular key time, as the U.S. Senate considers additional subsidies to the nuclear industry in its version of pending climate legislation and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) seeks public comment on weakening the rules for loan-guarantee bailouts of proposed new reactors.
Yves Marignac said: "I am at a loss to understand how the United States could be so far off the mark in its understanding of the French experience with nuclear power. The so-called 'success story' of the French nuclear program, which is being promoted so assiduously by the U.S. nuclear industry, is a complete disconnect with the stark reality of the 50-year history of rising costs, steadily worsening delays, technological dead-ends, failed industrial challenges and planning mistakes. The United States could make few worse mistakes than embracing France's sorry nuclear legacy. If American policymakers are going to weigh the example of France, they need to get the facts instead of settling for the fantasy being sold to them by the US nuclear industry."
In his remarks today, Marignac noted the following key problems:
• French nuclear technology is deeply flawed. The French EPR Reactor is a new reactor design developed by the company Areva in cooperation with the German firm Siemens. Serious doubts have been raised about the safety and cost of the EPR. Experience in the construction at the two sites where EPRs are being built, in Finland (Olkiluoto 3) and France (Flamanville 3), has revealed serious and fundamental weaknesses in design, problems during construction phases and soaring costs. British and Finnish nuclear regulators have also raised significant safety questions, in particular about the computerized command and control system proposed for these reactors.
• French nuclear reactor construction delays are getting steadily worse, not better. Alongside increasing costs, construction times have proven to be problematic. The last four reactors that were built in France, two units in Chooz and two in Civaux, were only connected on average 10.5 years after construction work began, and subsequent safety problems caused further delays. Their official industrial service only started in 2000 and 2002 respectively, some 15.5 and 12.5 years after construction started.
• French nuclear reactor costs are just as out of control as they are in the U.S. The EPR has been promoted as a technology that makes nuclear energy cheaper and more competitive. When the decision was made to build an EPR in Finland in 2002, the government promised that it would cost Euro 2.5 billion and take only four years to build. The final contract, three years later, put the price at Euro 3 billion and construction time was set at 4.5 years. Since construction began in summer 2005, a variety of technical problems have led to a three and a half-year delay, extending the construction period to at least 7 years. The currently estimated additional cost is Euro 2.3 billion, raising the current price tag to Euro 5.3 billion, almost 75 percent over the initial estimate. More problems, delays and cost overruns are likely to occur before the project is completed. In September 2008, Nucleonics Week quoted an Areva official, saying that Euro 4.5 billion will be a minimum price for any new EPR — almost twice the initial estimate. The other EPR being built in Flamanville, France, was approved in 2005 on the basis of a 2.8 c€/kWh cost estimate, which was increased by EDF in December 2008 to 5.4 c€/kWh, although EDF itself estimated that it should be below 4.6 c€/kWh to guarantee profitability.
• Nuclear power in France has not promoted energy independence. Nuclear power in France is a major presence, providing 76 percent of electricity produced in 2008. However, electricity accounted for only 20.7 percent of the final energy consumption in France that year. Excluding electricity exports, the overall contribution of nuclear power to France's final energy consumption is only in the range of 14 percent. If the real aim of the nuclear programme was to reduce oil dependence, then it has clearly failed in its objectives. Over 70 percent of France's final energy is provided by fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal), with oil accounting for 49 percent of the energy consumption in 2007. Nuclear power cannot provide energy security, as it only has a marginal effect upon oil consumption, which is dominated by the transport sector. France consumes more oil per capita than the European average, and despite its long-term objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by three-quarters, it seems incapable of bucking an upward trend. This is due largely to the weak policies on energy efficiency and new energy sources, influenced by the lock-in of nuclear power.
• French nuclear power is not "safer" ... and the nation does not have a long term solution to waste storage. The operators of the 200 nuclear facilities in France declare a very large number of events — considered relevant for safety — every year. EDF alone declares between 10,000 and 12,000, of which 700 to 800 are deemed "incidents" or "significant events". Large amounts of radioactive waste arise from the French nuclear programme. In total, close to 890,000 cubic meters (m3) of radioactive waste had been produced by the end of 2004. Almost 40 percent of this amount is linked to reprocessing. This total does not account for some 12,000 m3 of waste from the reprocessing plant in Marcoule that was dumped into the sea in 1967 and 1969. While reprocessing is presented as a means to reduce the volume of highly-radioactive long-lived wastes in final disposal, it actually increases the complexity of waste management, and thereby the danger for the population and environment. Reprocessing comes with numerous extra nuclear facilities and transports, each creating extra safety risks. But also 'normal' radiation exposure arising from routine operations increases, for example by the radioactive discharges of La Hague reprocessing plants, with authorized discharge levels up to 1000 times higher than those applying to the nearby Flamanville nuclear power station. And even France, supposedly the country of nuclear expertise, has no long-term solution for its nuclear wastes.
• Nuclear power in France is not popular. The pursuit of the nuclear program in France is a permanently undemocratic choice. Contrary to the image presented in the United States, the French population is no more in favor of nuclear power than the European average — indeed a majority is opposed to the building of new plants. Surveys repeatedly show that the public lacks confidence in the institutional promoters of nuclear power.
• The "nationalized" nuclear model in France is completely incompatible with the market-driven U.S. In 2001, Compagnie Générale des Matières Nucléaires (Cogema — General Company for Nuclear Materials), a private company established in 1976, merged with Framatome, the nuclear reactor builder, to create the Areva group. Currently, 96 percent of the share capital of the Areva group is held by the French state and large French industries. Electricité de France (EDF), the French electric utility, was established in 1946 through nationalization of a number of state and private companies. First and foremost responsible for overseeing development of the electricity supply across France, today EDF operates all 59 nuclear reactors in service in France. EDF was partly privatized in 2005-2006, but the French government still retains control 84.9 percent of its shares.
• State ownership of French nuclear power means that the true costs are hidden. Though largely in an indirect fashion, French taxpayers bear a large part of the nuclear costs. The French government, as both the regulator of electricity prices and the owner of the utility EDF, has been able to overcome the main obstacle to nuclear power by planning, at liberty, the return of capital costs from nuclear investments. French public funding is widely provided to the nuclear industry, from financing extensive R&D programs to guaranteeing low-rate loans. Official cost estimates for nuclear power tend to neglect or downplay hidden costs from the fuel cycle, waste management, decommissioning of nuclear facilities, security, infrastructural changes and state guarantees for liabilities. All in all, nuclear power is highly subsidized by the French taxpayer.
ABOUT YVES MARIGNAC
Yves Marignac is executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris, which he joined in 1997, after four years shared between academic research at Paris-XI University and applied studies in the French nuclear institute CEA and the nuclear company STMI. His consultant work covers a wide range of nuclear issues for various institutional bodies and NGOs at the national and international level. In 1999-2000, Marignac participated in the economic evaluation of the nuclear option commissioned by French Prime Minister (known as Charpin-Dessus-Pellat report), and in 2001 he was a co-author of a report to the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Option Assessment (STOA) Panel on reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. In 2005, he acted as consultant to the Commission that organized the institutional public debate on the project of the new French reactor, EPR (Flamanville-3).
Marignac is the author or co-author of a number of books and other publications, including Nuclear Power, the Great Illusion - Promises, Setbacks and Threats (October 2008) and Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing in France (April 2008).
CONTACT: Ailis Aaron Wolf, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com.
EDITOR'S NOTE: A streaming audio replay of the news event is available on the Web at http://www.nuclearbailout.org.
September 15, 2009
CONTACT: Alis Aaron Wolf, NIRS 703-276-3265
Marignac Says "Far From Being a Model, France Should be a Powerful Cautionary Tale for the U.S. about the Folly of a Headlong Rush into More Nuclear Power".
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Sep tember 15, 2009
U.S. policy makers are in the grips of "dangerous and costly illusions" if they think that France is a model showing how nuclear power could be implemented aggressively in the United States, according to Yves Marignac, a leading international consultant on nuclear energy issues and the executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris.
In visits this week with state and federal officials, Marignac is debunking the myth of the so-called "French nuclear model" that is being touted as a blueprint for the revival of the embattled nuclear power industry in the U.S. His visit comes at a particular key time, as the U.S. Senate considers additional subsidies to the nuclear industry in its version of pending climate legislation and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) seeks public comment on weakening the rules for loan-guarantee bailouts of proposed new reactors.
Yves Marignac said: "I am at a loss to understand how the United States could be so far off the mark in its understanding of the French experience with nuclear power. The so-called 'success story' of the French nuclear program, which is being promoted so assiduously by the U.S. nuclear industry, is a complete disconnect with the stark reality of the 50-year history of rising costs, steadily worsening delays, technological dead-ends, failed industrial challenges and planning mistakes. The United States could make few worse mistakes than embracing France's sorry nuclear legacy. If American policymakers are going to weigh the example of France, they need to get the facts instead of settling for the fantasy being sold to them by the US nuclear industry."
In his remarks today, Marignac noted the following key problems:
• French nuclear technology is deeply flawed. The French EPR Reactor is a new reactor design developed by the company Areva in cooperation with the German firm Siemens. Serious doubts have been raised about the safety and cost of the EPR. Experience in the construction at the two sites where EPRs are being built, in Finland (Olkiluoto 3) and France (Flamanville 3), has revealed serious and fundamental weaknesses in design, problems during construction phases and soaring costs. British and Finnish nuclear regulators have also raised significant safety questions, in particular about the computerized command and control system proposed for these reactors.
• French nuclear reactor construction delays are getting steadily worse, not better. Alongside increasing costs, construction times have proven to be problematic. The last four reactors that were built in France, two units in Chooz and two in Civaux, were only connected on average 10.5 years after construction work began, and subsequent safety problems caused further delays. Their official industrial service only started in 2000 and 2002 respectively, some 15.5 and 12.5 years after construction started.
• French nuclear reactor costs are just as out of control as they are in the U.S. The EPR has been promoted as a technology that makes nuclear energy cheaper and more competitive. When the decision was made to build an EPR in Finland in 2002, the government promised that it would cost Euro 2.5 billion and take only four years to build. The final contract, three years later, put the price at Euro 3 billion and construction time was set at 4.5 years. Since construction began in summer 2005, a variety of technical problems have led to a three and a half-year delay, extending the construction period to at least 7 years. The currently estimated additional cost is Euro 2.3 billion, raising the current price tag to Euro 5.3 billion, almost 75 percent over the initial estimate. More problems, delays and cost overruns are likely to occur before the project is completed. In September 2008, Nucleonics Week quoted an Areva official, saying that Euro 4.5 billion will be a minimum price for any new EPR — almost twice the initial estimate. The other EPR being built in Flamanville, France, was approved in 2005 on the basis of a 2.8 c€/kWh cost estimate, which was increased by EDF in December 2008 to 5.4 c€/kWh, although EDF itself estimated that it should be below 4.6 c€/kWh to guarantee profitability.
• Nuclear power in France has not promoted energy independence. Nuclear power in France is a major presence, providing 76 percent of electricity produced in 2008. However, electricity accounted for only 20.7 percent of the final energy consumption in France that year. Excluding electricity exports, the overall contribution of nuclear power to France's final energy consumption is only in the range of 14 percent. If the real aim of the nuclear programme was to reduce oil dependence, then it has clearly failed in its objectives. Over 70 percent of France's final energy is provided by fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal), with oil accounting for 49 percent of the energy consumption in 2007. Nuclear power cannot provide energy security, as it only has a marginal effect upon oil consumption, which is dominated by the transport sector. France consumes more oil per capita than the European average, and despite its long-term objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by three-quarters, it seems incapable of bucking an upward trend. This is due largely to the weak policies on energy efficiency and new energy sources, influenced by the lock-in of nuclear power.
• French nuclear power is not "safer" ... and the nation does not have a long term solution to waste storage. The operators of the 200 nuclear facilities in France declare a very large number of events — considered relevant for safety — every year. EDF alone declares between 10,000 and 12,000, of which 700 to 800 are deemed "incidents" or "significant events". Large amounts of radioactive waste arise from the French nuclear programme. In total, close to 890,000 cubic meters (m3) of radioactive waste had been produced by the end of 2004. Almost 40 percent of this amount is linked to reprocessing. This total does not account for some 12,000 m3 of waste from the reprocessing plant in Marcoule that was dumped into the sea in 1967 and 1969. While reprocessing is presented as a means to reduce the volume of highly-radioactive long-lived wastes in final disposal, it actually increases the complexity of waste management, and thereby the danger for the population and environment. Reprocessing comes with numerous extra nuclear facilities and transports, each creating extra safety risks. But also 'normal' radiation exposure arising from routine operations increases, for example by the radioactive discharges of La Hague reprocessing plants, with authorized discharge levels up to 1000 times higher than those applying to the nearby Flamanville nuclear power station. And even France, supposedly the country of nuclear expertise, has no long-term solution for its nuclear wastes.
• Nuclear power in France is not popular. The pursuit of the nuclear program in France is a permanently undemocratic choice. Contrary to the image presented in the United States, the French population is no more in favor of nuclear power than the European average — indeed a majority is opposed to the building of new plants. Surveys repeatedly show that the public lacks confidence in the institutional promoters of nuclear power.
• The "nationalized" nuclear model in France is completely incompatible with the market-driven U.S. In 2001, Compagnie Générale des Matières Nucléaires (Cogema — General Company for Nuclear Materials), a private company established in 1976, merged with Framatome, the nuclear reactor builder, to create the Areva group. Currently, 96 percent of the share capital of the Areva group is held by the French state and large French industries. Electricité de France (EDF), the French electric utility, was established in 1946 through nationalization of a number of state and private companies. First and foremost responsible for overseeing development of the electricity supply across France, today EDF operates all 59 nuclear reactors in service in France. EDF was partly privatized in 2005-2006, but the French government still retains control 84.9 percent of its shares.
• State ownership of French nuclear power means that the true costs are hidden. Though largely in an indirect fashion, French taxpayers bear a large part of the nuclear costs. The French government, as both the regulator of electricity prices and the owner of the utility EDF, has been able to overcome the main obstacle to nuclear power by planning, at liberty, the return of capital costs from nuclear investments. French public funding is widely provided to the nuclear industry, from financing extensive R&D programs to guaranteeing low-rate loans. Official cost estimates for nuclear power tend to neglect or downplay hidden costs from the fuel cycle, waste management, decommissioning of nuclear facilities, security, infrastructural changes and state guarantees for liabilities. All in all, nuclear power is highly subsidized by the French taxpayer.
ABOUT YVES MARIGNAC
Yves Marignac is executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris, which he joined in 1997, after four years shared between academic research at Paris-XI University and applied studies in the French nuclear institute CEA and the nuclear company STMI. His consultant work covers a wide range of nuclear issues for various institutional bodies and NGOs at the national and international level. In 1999-2000, Marignac participated in the economic evaluation of the nuclear option commissioned by French Prime Minister (known as Charpin-Dessus-Pellat report), and in 2001 he was a co-author of a report to the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Option Assessment (STOA) Panel on reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. In 2005, he acted as consultant to the Commission that organized the institutional public debate on the project of the new French reactor, EPR (Flamanville-3).
Marignac is the author or co-author of a number of books and other publications, including Nuclear Power, the Great Illusion - Promises, Setbacks and Threats (October 2008) and Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing in France (April 2008).
CONTACT: Ailis Aaron Wolf, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com.
EDITOR'S NOTE: A streaming audio replay of the news event is available on the Web at http://www.nuclearbailout.org.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Nuclear Power in France: setting the record straight
La Hague reprocessing plantComment: Attention the state of Virginia, we do not want France's nuke power in our state! France does not care whom they nuke and will sell their nuke stuff to anybody! No to Nukes and No to France!
Nuclear Power in France: setting the record straight
A COSTLY MISTAKE
► The state-owned French nuclear industry has cost taxpayers billions, including huge export losses, construction and shutdown costs.
►The breeder reactor – on which the French nuclear hopes were based – was an expensive gamble. The Superphe nix breeder averaged a 7% capacity factor over its 14 years of operation.
FRENCH PUBLIC OPPOSITION
►60,000 people rallied in five cities in March 2007 in opposition to a proposed new EuropeanPressurized Reactor (EPR) in Northern France.
►Annual polls show at least 60% of French citizens would like to see nuclear power phased out and a shift made to renewable energy.
► In 2007, 50,000 French citizens signed a petition demanding a referendum on radioactive waste dumping in their communities.
FRENCH CORPORATIONS IN THE U.S.
► Two majority French-government-owned corporations – Areva and Électricité de France – would reap huge U.S. taxpayer funds if nuclear power is expanded in the U.S.
► Areva would be the beneficiary of U.S. tax dollars should a proposed uranium enrichment facility – owned by Areva – go forward in Idaho.
► EDF, a partner with Constellation, is applying to build EPR reactors in Maryland and in upstate New York. At least five additional EPRs are also under consideration in the U.S.
AREVA IN NIGER
► In Niger – as in many countries – uranium mining has disproportionately affected indigenous peoples who have seen none of the economic benefits but have suffered from health and environmental impacts. Proposed new mines across northern Niger have sparked opposition from tribespeople who have been arbitrarily arrested, tortured and executed without trial.
► Areva has mined uranium for 40 years in Niger, West Africa, creating radioactively-contaminated air, soil and water. Discarded radioactive metals from the mining operation are sold in public marketplaces.
► Areva has signed a deal for a huge new uranium mine in Niger that, if opened, would be the second largest in the world. Uranium mining threatens to deplete the Sahara Desert area water supply.
INTRODUCTION
France gets nearly 80% of its electricity from its 58 nuclear reactors. However, its heavy reliance on nuclear power creates safety and environmental risks, including an unresolved radioactive waste problem.
REPROCESSING
► France reprocesses its own, and some foreign, irradiated reactor fuel. That is, the
fuel is cut up and soaked in acid to extract plutonium and fissile uranium. This results in massive releases of radioactive gases, solids, and liquids into the environment.
► One hundred million gallons of radioactively contaminated liquids are discharged annually into the English Channel from the La Hague reprocessing center. Dumping these same wastes into the sea in containers would violate the 1970 London Dumping Convention.
► The claim that France “recycles” its irradiated nuclear fuel is a major exaggeration. Only about 1% of the reprocessed fuel is used as reactor fuel while 99% remains as radioactive waste.
► A plane crashing on a La Hague irradiated fuel storage pond could release radioactivity more than six times the equivalent released at Chernobyl.
► Radioactive discharges from La Hague have contaminated area beaches and waters as far as the Arctic and beyond. These discharges likely caused the elevated rates of leukemia near La Hague found by two independent medical studies.
► La Hague routinely releases radioactive gases including concentrations of krypton-85 found at levels 90,000 times higher than in nature.
►Aerial discharges of carbon-14, considered to be one of the most damaging radioactive isotopes to human health, have also been detected in the La Hague area. Radioactive carbon dioxide — the leading climate change culprit, is also released.
RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROBLEMS
► France has no high-level radioactive waste repository and faces public opposition to the only one it is exploring, at Bure.
► Reprocessing has created large quantities of solid waste contaminated with plutonium that will need to be isolated permanently.
► Much of the waste remaining in France from the reprocessing of foreign fuel has never been returned to the country of origin, rendering France a de facto international dump site.
► The so-called low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste dump sites that do exist –including in the important Champagne region – are leaking radioactivity into the groundwater.
► Radioactive tailings from the 210 abandoned uranium mines in France have been used in public areas, including school playgrounds and public parking lots.
PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION
► After plutonium and uranium are extracted during reprocessing, they can be combined into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel. This is used in fewer than 20 MOX reactors which generate less than 10% of French nuclear electricity.
► MOX reactors, like all reactors, also generate plutonium. There is no significant net reduction of plutonium from using MOX fuel.
► Dangerous plutonium oxide powder is transported regularly from La Hague to the
MOX fuel fabrication plants in Belgium and Southern France.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS LINK
►The 80-plus metric tons of plutonium stockpiled at La Hague in hundreds of vulnerable containers are enough to make at least 10,000 bombs.
►France has exported civilian nuclear technology and training to, or assisted in the nuclear programs of, Pakistan, Israel, India and South Africa, all of which developed nuclear weapons.
►France exported nuclear technology to Iran, now the subject of international controversy about whether Iran is also developing nuclear weapons.
► France has sent shipments of plutonium fuel overseas, risking hijacking, accident or diversion.
► France delivered and helped build Iraq’s Osirak reactor that was subsequently bombed by Israel in 1981.
►French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has toured the globe promoting nuclear power as a “bridge to the Islamic world.” France is marketing nuclear technology to much of the Middle East and North Africa.
FLAWED REACTOR TECHNOLOGY
►The French European Pressurized Reactors (EPR) under construction in France and Finland have encountered serious technical flaws including substandard parts.By July 2009, the Finnish reactor was already at least three years behind schedule and 60% over budget.
► The summer of 2008 saw a cascade of nuclear accidents in France. Drinking and bathing in the water was banned after radioactive spills at the Tricastin nuclear complex contaminated rivers.
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/France_pamphlet_July09.pdf
Nuclear Power in France: setting the record straight
A COSTLY MISTAKE
► The state-owned French nuclear industry has cost taxpayers billions, including huge export losses, construction and shutdown costs.
►The breeder reactor – on which the French nuclear hopes were based – was an expensive gamble. The Superphe nix breeder averaged a 7% capacity factor over its 14 years of operation.
FRENCH PUBLIC OPPOSITION
►60,000 people rallied in five cities in March 2007 in opposition to a proposed new EuropeanPressurized Reactor (EPR) in Northern France.
►Annual polls show at least 60% of French citizens would like to see nuclear power phased out and a shift made to renewable energy.
► In 2007, 50,000 French citizens signed a petition demanding a referendum on radioactive waste dumping in their communities.
FRENCH CORPORATIONS IN THE U.S.
► Two majority French-government-owned corporations – Areva and Électricité de France – would reap huge U.S. taxpayer funds if nuclear power is expanded in the U.S.
► Areva would be the beneficiary of U.S. tax dollars should a proposed uranium enrichment facility – owned by Areva – go forward in Idaho.
► EDF, a partner with Constellation, is applying to build EPR reactors in Maryland and in upstate New York. At least five additional EPRs are also under consideration in the U.S.
AREVA IN NIGER
► In Niger – as in many countries – uranium mining has disproportionately affected indigenous peoples who have seen none of the economic benefits but have suffered from health and environmental impacts. Proposed new mines across northern Niger have sparked opposition from tribespeople who have been arbitrarily arrested, tortured and executed without trial.
► Areva has mined uranium for 40 years in Niger, West Africa, creating radioactively-contaminated air, soil and water. Discarded radioactive metals from the mining operation are sold in public marketplaces.
► Areva has signed a deal for a huge new uranium mine in Niger that, if opened, would be the second largest in the world. Uranium mining threatens to deplete the Sahara Desert area water supply.
INTRODUCTION
France gets nearly 80% of its electricity from its 58 nuclear reactors. However, its heavy reliance on nuclear power creates safety and environmental risks, including an unresolved radioactive waste problem.
REPROCESSING
► France reprocesses its own, and some foreign, irradiated reactor fuel. That is, the
fuel is cut up and soaked in acid to extract plutonium and fissile uranium. This results in massive releases of radioactive gases, solids, and liquids into the environment.
► One hundred million gallons of radioactively contaminated liquids are discharged annually into the English Channel from the La Hague reprocessing center. Dumping these same wastes into the sea in containers would violate the 1970 London Dumping Convention.
► The claim that France “recycles” its irradiated nuclear fuel is a major exaggeration. Only about 1% of the reprocessed fuel is used as reactor fuel while 99% remains as radioactive waste.
► A plane crashing on a La Hague irradiated fuel storage pond could release radioactivity more than six times the equivalent released at Chernobyl.
► Radioactive discharges from La Hague have contaminated area beaches and waters as far as the Arctic and beyond. These discharges likely caused the elevated rates of leukemia near La Hague found by two independent medical studies.
► La Hague routinely releases radioactive gases including concentrations of krypton-85 found at levels 90,000 times higher than in nature.
►Aerial discharges of carbon-14, considered to be one of the most damaging radioactive isotopes to human health, have also been detected in the La Hague area. Radioactive carbon dioxide — the leading climate change culprit, is also released.
RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROBLEMS
► France has no high-level radioactive waste repository and faces public opposition to the only one it is exploring, at Bure.
► Reprocessing has created large quantities of solid waste contaminated with plutonium that will need to be isolated permanently.
► Much of the waste remaining in France from the reprocessing of foreign fuel has never been returned to the country of origin, rendering France a de facto international dump site.
► The so-called low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste dump sites that do exist –including in the important Champagne region – are leaking radioactivity into the groundwater.
► Radioactive tailings from the 210 abandoned uranium mines in France have been used in public areas, including school playgrounds and public parking lots.
PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION
► After plutonium and uranium are extracted during reprocessing, they can be combined into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel. This is used in fewer than 20 MOX reactors which generate less than 10% of French nuclear electricity.
► MOX reactors, like all reactors, also generate plutonium. There is no significant net reduction of plutonium from using MOX fuel.
► Dangerous plutonium oxide powder is transported regularly from La Hague to the
MOX fuel fabrication plants in Belgium and Southern France.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS LINK
►The 80-plus metric tons of plutonium stockpiled at La Hague in hundreds of vulnerable containers are enough to make at least 10,000 bombs.
►France has exported civilian nuclear technology and training to, or assisted in the nuclear programs of, Pakistan, Israel, India and South Africa, all of which developed nuclear weapons.
►France exported nuclear technology to Iran, now the subject of international controversy about whether Iran is also developing nuclear weapons.
► France has sent shipments of plutonium fuel overseas, risking hijacking, accident or diversion.
► France delivered and helped build Iraq’s Osirak reactor that was subsequently bombed by Israel in 1981.
►French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has toured the globe promoting nuclear power as a “bridge to the Islamic world.” France is marketing nuclear technology to much of the Middle East and North Africa.
FLAWED REACTOR TECHNOLOGY
►The French European Pressurized Reactors (EPR) under construction in France and Finland have encountered serious technical flaws including substandard parts.By July 2009, the Finnish reactor was already at least three years behind schedule and 60% over budget.
► The summer of 2008 saw a cascade of nuclear accidents in France. Drinking and bathing in the water was banned after radioactive spills at the Tricastin nuclear complex contaminated rivers.
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/France_pamphlet_July09.pdf
Monday, September 21, 2009
Factchecking Friedman on France’s Radioactive Waste Issues
Comment: France is trying to come to America with their French's companies wanting to build the so-called "New Nuke Technology" (which is having problems in Finland and France). France is also chasing uranium for future uranium mining in America so they can take in back to France. France is not energy independent because they do not have any more uranium mines in their country. So watch out Virginia, our leaders are falling for the French liars, I cringe every time I hear someone say, "We need to be Like France because of their successful nuke program"! France is a failure at the nuke game, more to come....
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman — he of Friedman unit notoriety — spewed forth with more wisdom stupidity yesterday in “Real Men Tax Gas” — on nuclear power plants:(article follows)
… France today generates nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants, and it has managed to deal with all the radioactive waste issues without any problems or panics. And us? We get about 20 percent and have not been able or willing to build one new nuclear plant since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, even though that accident led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or neighbors. We’re too afraid to store nuclear waste deep in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain — totally safe — at a time when French mayors clamor to have reactors in their towns to create jobs. In short, the French stayed the course on clean nuclear power, despite Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and we ran for cover.
It’s not bad enough Friedman thinks we’re all wimps when it comes to the thought of paying taxes on gas. He thinks France has everything figured out: “[France] has managed to deal with all the radioactive waste issues without any problems or panics.”
Sorry, Tommy boy, wrong. Denis Du Bois wrote March 19, 2005 at EnergyPriorities.com:
France gets the majority of its power from nuclear reactors. In the mid 1950s, over feeble public dissent, the country’s leadership made that commitment.
Today, France is dealing with the legacy of its nuclear programs. Waste is stored in large facilities, while scientists search for ways to make it less deadly.
Parliament issued a report in March, 2005, on the issue of France’s nuclear waste. Its recommendations confirm the status quo: waste storage and decontamination research.
The cost of waste disposal — hundreds of billions of euros — is being passed along to ratepayers. High rates aren’t the only legacy of 50 years of nuclear power. Citizens and scientists alike are concerned about security, groundwater contamination, and storage.
And Du Bois describes the scope of the problem — in 2005:
Highly radioactive materials, such as spent fuel rods, are stored in The Hague and at the Marcoule nuclear facility, on the Rhone River near the southern city of Orange.
The director of the Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique (CEA) at the Marcoule facility, Loic Martin-Deidier, recalls the enthusiasm for quickly launching civil and military nuclear programs. At the time, he says, “they weren’t thinking 40 years ahead.”
Half a century later, nuclear waste continues to grow. Rods from atomic reactors aren’t the only waste France has to deal with.
Every day, about ten shipping containers arrive on trucks at the Soulaines-Dhuys storage facility outside Troyes, in the province of Ardennes, 180 kilometers east of Paris. On board are barrels of waste that isn’t radioactive enough to be stored at Marcoule. Every year, 15,000 cubic meters of waste contaminated with uranium, plutonium and tritium arrive here.
The 350-acre site is like an above-ground Yucca Mountain. Construction cranes hover above a hundred bunker-like cement blocks already filled with barrels encased in concrete. In 60 years, the cranes’ job will be done, the 400-bunker facility will be full, and the entire facility will be covered with a concrete lid. What then?
Amen. What then?
The Soulaines-Dhuys site will enter a 300-year surveillance phase. After that, the plan is to observe the site until the stored waste loses its radioactivity.
The initial 300 years is just the beginning. Even moderately radioactive plutonium retains hazardous for 24,000 years. Skeptics wonder if future generations will follow the plan — or even remember where the site is located.
Americans are wimps, Tom? Show us who’s the stupid one in this scenario, please.
In the end, locals may have little say in the matter. In 2002, France stored 978,000 cubic meters of waste. In 2020, the annual amount is expected to be 1.9 million cubic meters.
The country is far behind most of its European neighbors in renewable energy development. It has meager fossil fuel resources, such as coal or gas. The country is, for the foreseeable future, dependent on nuclear power.
Meanwhile, keeping the lights on means the waste keeps coming.
Choice? Lady or the Tiger. Pick one: gas/oil or coal — or hundreds, yea thousands, of years of nuclear waste.
Oh. What’s the “Friedman unit” you ask? Since 2003 Friedman repeatedly stated “the next six months” was the time period in which “we’re going to find out…whether a decent outcome is possible” in the Iraq War. Well, how many “Friedmans” has it been?
Just what we thought.
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/factchecking-friedman-on-frances-radioactive-waste-issues/
Real Men Tax Gas
September 20, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman — he of Friedman unit notoriety — spewed forth with more wisdom stupidity yesterday in “Real Men Tax Gas” — on nuclear power plants:(article follows)
… France today generates nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants, and it has managed to deal with all the radioactive waste issues without any problems or panics. And us? We get about 20 percent and have not been able or willing to build one new nuclear plant since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, even though that accident led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or neighbors. We’re too afraid to store nuclear waste deep in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain — totally safe — at a time when French mayors clamor to have reactors in their towns to create jobs. In short, the French stayed the course on clean nuclear power, despite Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and we ran for cover.
It’s not bad enough Friedman thinks we’re all wimps when it comes to the thought of paying taxes on gas. He thinks France has everything figured out: “[France] has managed to deal with all the radioactive waste issues without any problems or panics.”
Sorry, Tommy boy, wrong. Denis Du Bois wrote March 19, 2005 at EnergyPriorities.com:
France gets the majority of its power from nuclear reactors. In the mid 1950s, over feeble public dissent, the country’s leadership made that commitment.
Today, France is dealing with the legacy of its nuclear programs. Waste is stored in large facilities, while scientists search for ways to make it less deadly.
Parliament issued a report in March, 2005, on the issue of France’s nuclear waste. Its recommendations confirm the status quo: waste storage and decontamination research.
The cost of waste disposal — hundreds of billions of euros — is being passed along to ratepayers. High rates aren’t the only legacy of 50 years of nuclear power. Citizens and scientists alike are concerned about security, groundwater contamination, and storage.
And Du Bois describes the scope of the problem — in 2005:
Highly radioactive materials, such as spent fuel rods, are stored in The Hague and at the Marcoule nuclear facility, on the Rhone River near the southern city of Orange.
The director of the Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique (CEA) at the Marcoule facility, Loic Martin-Deidier, recalls the enthusiasm for quickly launching civil and military nuclear programs. At the time, he says, “they weren’t thinking 40 years ahead.”
Half a century later, nuclear waste continues to grow. Rods from atomic reactors aren’t the only waste France has to deal with.
Every day, about ten shipping containers arrive on trucks at the Soulaines-Dhuys storage facility outside Troyes, in the province of Ardennes, 180 kilometers east of Paris. On board are barrels of waste that isn’t radioactive enough to be stored at Marcoule. Every year, 15,000 cubic meters of waste contaminated with uranium, plutonium and tritium arrive here.
The 350-acre site is like an above-ground Yucca Mountain. Construction cranes hover above a hundred bunker-like cement blocks already filled with barrels encased in concrete. In 60 years, the cranes’ job will be done, the 400-bunker facility will be full, and the entire facility will be covered with a concrete lid. What then?
Amen. What then?
The Soulaines-Dhuys site will enter a 300-year surveillance phase. After that, the plan is to observe the site until the stored waste loses its radioactivity.
The initial 300 years is just the beginning. Even moderately radioactive plutonium retains hazardous for 24,000 years. Skeptics wonder if future generations will follow the plan — or even remember where the site is located.
Americans are wimps, Tom? Show us who’s the stupid one in this scenario, please.
In the end, locals may have little say in the matter. In 2002, France stored 978,000 cubic meters of waste. In 2020, the annual amount is expected to be 1.9 million cubic meters.
The country is far behind most of its European neighbors in renewable energy development. It has meager fossil fuel resources, such as coal or gas. The country is, for the foreseeable future, dependent on nuclear power.
Meanwhile, keeping the lights on means the waste keeps coming.
Choice? Lady or the Tiger. Pick one: gas/oil or coal — or hundreds, yea thousands, of years of nuclear waste.
Oh. What’s the “Friedman unit” you ask? Since 2003 Friedman repeatedly stated “the next six months” was the time period in which “we’re going to find out…whether a decent outcome is possible” in the Iraq War. Well, how many “Friedmans” has it been?
Just what we thought.
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/factchecking-friedman-on-frances-radioactive-waste-issues/
Real Men Tax Gas
September 20, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Do we owe the French and other Europeans a second look when it comes to their willingness to exercise power in today’s world? Was it really fair for some to call the French and other Europeans “cheese-eating surrender monkeys?” Is it time to restore the French in “French fries” at the Congressional dining room, and stop calling them “Freedom Fries?” Why do I ask these profound questions?
Because we are once again having one of those big troop debates: Do we send more forces to Afghanistan, and are we ready to do what it takes to “win” there? This argument will be framed in many ways, but you can set your watch on these chest-thumpers: “toughness,” “grit,” “fortitude,” “willingness to do whatever it takes to realize big stakes” — all the qualities we tend to see in ourselves, with some justification, but not in Europeans.
How so? France today generates nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants, and it has managed to deal with all the radioactive waste issues without any problems or panics. And us? We get about 20 percent and have not been able or willing to build one new nuclear plant since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, even though that accident led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or neighbors. We’re too afraid to store nuclear waste deep in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain — totally safe — at a time when French mayors clamor to have reactors in their towns to create jobs. In short, the French stayed the course on clean nuclear power, despite Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and we ran for cover.
How about Denmark? Little Denmark, sweet, never-hurt-a-fly Denmark, was hit hard by the 1973 Arab oil embargo. In 1973, Denmark got all its oil from the Middle East. Today? Zero. Why? Because Denmark got tough. It imposed on itself a carbon tax, a roughly $5-a-gallon gasoline tax, made massive investments in energy efficiency and in systems to generate energy from waste, along with a discovery of North Sea oil (about 40 percent of its needs).
Such a tax would make our economy healthier by reducing the deficit, by stimulating the renewable energy industry, by strengthening the dollar through shrinking oil imports and by helping to shift the burden of health care away from business to government so our companies can compete better globally. Such a tax would make our population healthier by expanding health care and reducing emissions. Such a tax would make our national-security healthier by shrinking our dependence on oil from countries that have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs and by increasing our leverage over petro-dictators, like those in Iran, Russia and Venezuela, through shrinking their oil incomes.
In sum, we would be physically healthier, economically healthier and strategically healthier. And yet, amazingly, even talking about such a tax is “off the table” in Washington. You can’t mention it. But sending your neighbor’s son or daughter to risk their lives in Afghanistan? No problem. Talk away. Pound your chest.
So, I ask yet again: Who are the real cheese-eating surrender monkeys in this picture?
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/factchecking-friedman-on-frances-radioactive-waste-issues/
Because we are once again having one of those big troop debates: Do we send more forces to Afghanistan, and are we ready to do what it takes to “win” there? This argument will be framed in many ways, but you can set your watch on these chest-thumpers: “toughness,” “grit,” “fortitude,” “willingness to do whatever it takes to realize big stakes” — all the qualities we tend to see in ourselves, with some justification, but not in Europeans.
How so? France today generates nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants, and it has managed to deal with all the radioactive waste issues without any problems or panics. And us? We get about 20 percent and have not been able or willing to build one new nuclear plant since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, even though that accident led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or neighbors. We’re too afraid to store nuclear waste deep in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain — totally safe — at a time when French mayors clamor to have reactors in their towns to create jobs. In short, the French stayed the course on clean nuclear power, despite Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and we ran for cover.
How about Denmark? Little Denmark, sweet, never-hurt-a-fly Denmark, was hit hard by the 1973 Arab oil embargo. In 1973, Denmark got all its oil from the Middle East. Today? Zero. Why? Because Denmark got tough. It imposed on itself a carbon tax, a roughly $5-a-gallon gasoline tax, made massive investments in energy efficiency and in systems to generate energy from waste, along with a discovery of North Sea oil (about 40 percent of its needs).
Such a tax would make our economy healthier by reducing the deficit, by stimulating the renewable energy industry, by strengthening the dollar through shrinking oil imports and by helping to shift the burden of health care away from business to government so our companies can compete better globally. Such a tax would make our population healthier by expanding health care and reducing emissions. Such a tax would make our national-security healthier by shrinking our dependence on oil from countries that have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs and by increasing our leverage over petro-dictators, like those in Iran, Russia and Venezuela, through shrinking their oil incomes.
In sum, we would be physically healthier, economically healthier and strategically healthier. And yet, amazingly, even talking about such a tax is “off the table” in Washington. You can’t mention it. But sending your neighbor’s son or daughter to risk their lives in Afghanistan? No problem. Talk away. Pound your chest.
So, I ask yet again: Who are the real cheese-eating surrender monkeys in this picture?
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/factchecking-friedman-on-frances-radioactive-waste-issues/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
