Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

The French Nuclear Industry Is Bad Enough in France; Let's Not Expand It to the U.S.

By Linda Gunter, AlterNet. Posted March 23, 2009.


Areva, France's nuclear industry, has a solid reputation, but a trail of radioactive waste and deaths in Africa follow its wake.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

"Why can't the Americans be more like the French?" It's the prevailing pro-nuclear refrain, the latest in the nuclear industry's efforts at fictional reinvention.

And until the collapse of his ill-fated and poorly orchestrated presidential run, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was the choirmaster, saying: "If France can produce 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear power, why can't we?"

This clarion call to newfound Francophilia (remember "freedom fries?") is based on a number of false assumptions, the most obvious being that if France gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy, this equates with success.

A poodlish U.S. press corps has largely lapped up the spoon-fed propaganda that everything nuclear French is magnifique, conveniently forgetting its post 9/11 self-flagellation after it meekly buckled to the Bush administration's misjudged bellicosity.

But France's monopolistic dependency on splitting the atom to turn on the lights has come with a huge price -- not only financially but in environmental and health costs. In reality, France is a radioactive mess, additionally burdened with an overwhelming amount of radioactive waste, much of which is simply dispersed into the surrounding environment.

The situation is complicated by the fact that Areva, the French nuclear corporation and biggest atomic operator in the world, is almost wholly owned by the French government. Consequently, France's President Nicolas Sarkozy has gone into high marketing gear -- the Washington Post anointed him "the world's most aggressive nuclear salesman" -- pushing nuclear power to any country willing to pay, most notably in the Middle East.

This proliferation-friendly profiteering, however, ignores an ugly situation at home and in other countries where Areva has left its radioactive footprint.

France has 210 abandoned uranium mines. The leftover radioactive dirt -- known as tailings -- along with radioactively contaminated rocks, have been used in school playgrounds and ski-resort parking lots. Efforts to force Areva to clean up its mess have been met with resistance from the company.

Historically, uranium mining corporations, including those in the U.S., have not been obliged to pay for cleanup. Many sites remain contaminated today, and disused uranium mine sites carry no warning signs. When a French documentary exposing the French uranium mining mess was scheduled to air on national television in February, Areva tried unsuccessfully to block it from the airwaves.

Areva CEO Anne Lauvergeon proclaims transparency as one of the hallmarks of her company. But its failed censorship attempt, coupled with the July 2008 cover-up when a major uranium spill at a nuclear processing plant went unreported to the public for 14 hours, belies that assertion.

Areva's subsidiary at Tricastin, the huge nuclear complex where the spill occurred -- contaminating two rivers, kept quiet about the accident and then denied the spill endangered human health. Nevertheless, drinking and bathing in the water was temporarily banned, and Tricastin wine growers have struggled to market their products since the accident.

Three more accidents in the region followed, prompting the French environment minister to order radioactive readings at all 58 operating French reactors.

The dirtiest French nuclear site -- with the cleanest of reputations -- is the vast reprocessing plant at La Hague on the Normandy coast. The nuclear industry has successfully cast reprocessing as "recycling," but nothing about reprocessing could be further from the collections of newspapers and soda cans that recycling conjures in the public's mind's eye.

La Hague takes in irradiated reactor fuel -- domestic and from other countries -- and, through a chemical process, separates the plutonium and uranium for theoretical reuse as new reactor fuel. The plutonium is mixed with uranium to make a fuel known as MOX.

However, fewer than 20 French reactors use MOX fuel, which in turn can handle only minimal proportions of plutonium, and the waste these reactors produce cannot be reprocessed. Since all reactors also produce plutonium during the fission process -- as much as 40 atomic bombs worth per year, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council -- the net reduction of plutonium by MOX reactors is virtually zero and contributes nothing to the recycling of waste fuel.

Instead, 80 tons of surplus plutonium remain at La Hague in the equivalent of hundreds of soda-can-size containers. About 30 tons result from imported irradiated fuel from client countries, most of whom have now canceled their reprocessing contracts. This is despite a French law that mandates reprocessed waste fuel be returned to its country of origin.

Most of the uranium isn't "recycled" either. Ninety-five percent of the mass of spent French reactor fuel consists of uranium that is so contaminated with other fission products that it cannot be reused as reactor fuel at all (although France ships some of it to Russia). The vast majority of the uranium from reprocessing -- nonfissile uranium 238 -- cannot be recycled either and will need to be permanently secured.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: nuclear industry, niger, france, areva

Linda Gunter is the co-founder of Beyond Nuclear.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
We get 20% of our electricity from nuclear power
Posted by: gunboat diplomat on Mar 23, 2009 12:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Realistically, that number is unlikely to go up or down over the next ten years - no new nuclear plants are going to be approved in the U.S., only in countries like India, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia - great. On the other hand, it is possible that older existing nuclear power plants will have to be refurbished or shut down entirely - and these plants have generated huge piles of waste - any older plant has hundreds of thousands of hot fuel rods sitting under pools of water, waiting for disposal in some nameless underground repository.

At the same time, the government's yearly bill for cleaning up nuclear messes from the U.S. bomb program is in the tens of billions - while support for solar & wind power has been almost entirely non-existent.

Regardless of your opinion on nuclear, there's no excuse for building more plans until solar-based and wind-based electricity are each generating as much as nuclear does today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good luck with that Posted by: Gulliver
» RE: Good luck with that Posted by: cplot
» Good idea! Posted by: Gulliver
The US hates the French but loves their "evil" ways.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Mar 23, 2009 12:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When it comes to saying no to the war, France is berated. However, when it comes to "guilty until proven innocent" system of injustice and going nuclear despite its risk, the US will make a strange bedfellow with France.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We could also mention...
Posted by: veig on Mar 23, 2009 1:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(disclaimer: I live in France)
- The fact that Nicolas Sarkozy is aggressively promoting Areva's nuclear plants to make the company sexier when the French state will try to sell it to big conglomerates such as Bouygues or Veolia (the owners of which turn out to be good friends with president Sarkozy)
- The fact that historic ties between the civil and military nuclear industries in France have led to a culture of opacity and a "move-along-nothing-to-see" policy in terms of PR. As was mentioned in the article, lots of "incidents" have remained secret, and the officials lied to the public in 1986 when they claimed that the Chernobyl radioactive cloud had stopped at our borders (!)
- Mix in the culture of greed inherent to private industries such as Bouygues, and you have all the ingredients for industrial disasters. Also, considering how lightly Total was bailed out of its trials with the AZF and Erika disasters, this does not bode well for our future.
- The fact that the cost of dismantling retired power plants has been wildly underestimated and that the taxpayer will be left footing the bill, as the Brennilis Nuclear Power Plant has shown

All these facts make nuclear electricity not such a bargain after all...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

France
Posted by: maxfactor on Mar 23, 2009 3:20 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is overexagerating the amount of nuclear electricity generated: It amounts to max. 20% of grossproduct. The remaining 80% is generated conventionally through oil, coal and water.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: France Posted by: veig
» RE: France Posted by: Philor
» RE: France Posted by: john mont
France's nuclear parts junkyard?
Posted by: littlepitcher on Mar 23, 2009 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting recent news post: a Knoxville, TN man was arrested for attempting to sell France nuclear scrap from AEC junk piles.

This area also engendered the Reece Roth scandal--this crook was convicted of passing military secrets to China and had just hired an Iranian, probably for the same purpose--the Reeces have an Iranian family branch. These are from ex-GOP vice-chair Carroll Reece's bunch.

From the TVA region which brought you the ash spill, a detente with French nuclear power. Be very afraid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Green electricity
Posted by: richholland on Mar 23, 2009 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Greens are in many european parliaments.

in western europe you can buy; GREEN electricity, strange enough it includes french nucleair electricity. So what the hell is Green???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» There is no Green Posted by: suprmark
OK, kiddies
Posted by: willymack on Mar 23, 2009 11:25 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As you can see from this dreadful story, radiation is poisonous, and bad for your health. What else? Jonnie? That's right; the people who profit from the nuclear power industry DON'T CARE who it hurts. Anything else? Betty? No, there's no way to neutralize the radiation, but practically NO RESEARCH has been done in this area, so we don't know if it's possible. Freddy? You say it'll all turn out for the good in the end? Really? How? You know what wishing without DOING anything about a problem is good for, right? We talked about that last month. remember? Time's up for now; class didmissed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You can use it Posted by: Gulliver
Depleted and reprocessed munitions
Posted by: bingahaba on Mar 23, 2009 1:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What seems to happen to reprocessed fuels is that it ends up in "DU" munitions - see "The Doctor, Depleted Uranium, and Dying Children" at 48:30.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Fools...the mad fools
Posted by: jlowelld on Mar 23, 2009 1:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bottle that release the nuclear genie is one that needs to be re-corked--but can it be? With what is known already, the thought of even one new nuclear power plant being created is sheer lunacy. Serious consideration needs to be given the legacy of the Western Civilization: if all that's left is a deadly piles of nuclear waste, what are the implication for succeeding life forms? The mess needs to be clean-up, not added too--this should be the mantra of any reasonable discuss of nuclear power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's no safe way to get rid
Posted by: bettyn on Mar 23, 2009 4:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of nuclear waste. That's the problem...and so far no one's found a solution to it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Okay Posted by: Gulliver
Speaking of "radioactive footprint"
Posted by: TKO on Mar 23, 2009 5:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that uranium is a big threat, but I just want to point out that we leave a radioactive footprint in our wake too. It's called depleted uranium used in anti-tank shells and other ordinance and we have seeded large areas of Iraq with it. Evidence of the effects of this is the chromosome damage suffered by the Gulf War vets from the '91 war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lets be BETTER than France
Posted by: rickiey on Mar 23, 2009 5:06 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Why can't the Americans be more like the French?" It's the prevailing pro-nuclear refrain, the latest in the nuclear industry's efforts at fictional reinvention.

No we don't. (I'm pro-nuclear power). We don't want to be like France, and this article details why.

We want to be BETTER than France, and a hell of a lot better than we are now.

We want to stop STORING nuclear waste and start RECYCLING IT. Read about Yucca mountain and all the problems there....those tons of nuclear waste there can be our source of power, no more mines and all waste recycled.

STORING nuclear waste is just plain stupid, we should reprocess it and USE it. There's enough there to fuel reactors for years, and by the time it is all used up, solar and wind should be in place to take over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lets be BETTER than France Posted by: richholland
» RE: Lets be BETTER than France Posted by: richholland
66,000 tons of nuclear waste. Wow!
Posted by: newpapyrus on Mar 24, 2009 2:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that something is radioactive doesn't necessarily make it dangerous-- especially since practically everything in our universe is naturally radioactive-- including humans. When you invite company over to your house, you're significantly increasing the amount of radiation you receive from other people. And when you fly in an airplane, you're exposed to substantially more radiation. But merely being exposed to radiation should not be a concern unless you or the environment is being exposed to-- dangerous levels-- of radiation. But arguing that you want absolutely no exposure to radiation is simply impossible in our universe.

When you mine uranium, you're not creating some new source of radiation, you're simply digging in the ground of a place that is already-- naturally radioactive. All rocks, dirt, sand and water on Earth contain radioactive uranium and thorium. But I don't think you would consider all rocks, dirt, sand and water on Earth radioactively contaminated. And soil runoff naturally transports radioactive materials to lakes, rivers, and into the world's oceans.

In the long run, terrestrial mining of uranium is limited. If all of the world's energy (electricity, transportation fuels, industrial chemicals) were provide by terrestrial uranium then these resources would probably be exhausted in about 25 years. However, uranium and thorium breeder technologies could boost these resources by at least 400 times, giving us about 10,000 years of potential energy. This would also reduce uranium mining dramatically.

Alternatively, uranium can also be extracted from seawater. Even without breeding technologies, there's enough uranium in seawater to power our civilization for several thousand years. With breeding technologies, there is enough uranium in natural sea water to power our civilization-- forever.

As far as spent fuel and reprocessing are concerned, it really needs to be understood that the amounts of so called nuclear waste are-- relatively tiny-- compared to most other industries. And this is no exaggeration.

Coal power plants produce 100 times more radioactive waste (mostly uranium and thorium) than nuclear power plants do. We have over 100 nuclear power plants in the US. We'd have to build over 10,000 nuclear power plants in the US in order to produce as much radioactive waste as coal power plants already do.

And what do we do with this radioactive ash from coal power plants? Some goes into our homes since some coal ash is mixed in with cement. There is some controversy as to whether or not this is a health hazard. However, most brick and cement homes are already naturally radioactive.

Some of this radioactive ash is also used by farmers for fertilizer! So this radioactive material goes into the food chain. Of course, practically all food is naturally radioactive. And I'd probably be more concerned about the amounts of mercury being introduced into our food chain. But I find it ironic that people complain about disposing solidified radioactive material in some mountain, yet they have no problem putting it into their homes or into our food chain:-)

So far, the US in its entire history has produced 66,000 tons of radioactive spent fuel.Wow! That's enough to fill one whole football stadium with radioactive material just a few meters high. So if you wanted to, you could easily move all of this waste to a tiny tiny island in the ocean.

Coal power plants in the US, on the other hand, produce 130 million tons of toxic and radioactive ash-- every year! 130 million tons!
I'm not a big fan of using MOX in light water reactors. I prefer using the plutonium in thorium CANDU reactors to produce uranium 233.

Marcel F. Williams

New Papyrus Magazine:
http://www.newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AREVA, Nuclear Energy Make Important Contributions
Posted by: Jarret on Mar 25, 2009 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While some may have a quasi-religious or professional obligation to oppose nuclear energy, I would invite who is anyone curious about the issue to research it on your own and come to your own conclusions.

America’s nuclear power plants are important sources of carbon-free generation and produce 20 percent of our electricity. Nuclear power also represents nearly three-quarters of our emission-free generation; most of the rest comes from hydropower.

Expanding nuclear power can make one of the largest contributions to preventing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of any initiative under way in our country.

For people for whom it is their full-time jobs it is to attack nuclear energy, it is not surprising to see such a vitriolic attack against our company, which employs 6,000 hardworking people in the United States and 75,000 around the world.

It is also important to note that AREVA also is a leading producer of smart grid applications which make electricity distribution more efficient and have a rapidly growing renewable business in the biomass sector and producing offshore wind turbines.

It would take a long time to address each inaccuracy or misrepresentation in the original piece, but would like to address at least one regarding the La Hague recycling facility in France.

Protecting the environment is a priority for us in all of our operations. Because of concerns regarding La Hague, we have set up real-time environmental monitoring on our website. Check it out for yourself: http://www.lahague.areva-nc.com/.

We welcome visitors to our facilities in the United States and elsewhere, so people can draw their own conclusions about our environmental commitments.

-Jarret Adams, AREVA Inc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not so clean
Posted by: gzuckier on Mar 29, 2009 9:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The mess left from uranium mining can't be swept under the rug. The highest grade uranium ore contains less than 1% uranium,­ often less than .2%. So huge amounts of ore are finely pulverized, leaving 99.5% of it as tailings full of heavy metals and containing 85% of the orig­inal radioactivity, which eventually end up downstream or in gro­und water. The largest such piles in the US and Canada contain up to 30­ million tons of solid material. In Saxony, Germany, the Helmsdorf pil­e near Zwickau contains 50 million tonnes, and in Thuringia the Cul­mitzsch pile near Seelingstädt 86 million tonnes. ­The EPA estimates the lifetime lung cancer risk from living near a p­ile of uranium tailings as 2%, just from the radon it emits. (This ­is about 1/10 that of a heavy smoker, and more than a lifelong heavy ­smoker who has quit for 10 years). This means that the uranium tailings­ deposits already existing in the United States in 1983 will cause 5­ lung cancer deaths annually. The worst part of the tailings, however, is the heavy metals, not the radioactivity. Aside from gradual dispersal of t­ailings by everything from leaching into groundwater to burrowing anima­ls, every now and then the dams they are held behind break; and of cour­se, in the third world tailings have a tendency to just get dumped.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Engineering Method
Posted by: jimreeve on Mar 31, 2009 4:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we simply apply the engineering method to nuclear power plants in the same way that it is applied to airplanes, then we would find that we must build no more N-Plants. This is mainly because of the risk calculations. Risk is defined as “the probability of something bad happening,” and is always between 1 and 0. The two numbers required to do these calculations are the down side of the risk and the numerical risk. For N-plants these numbers are very difficult or impossible to determine.
The down side of the risk is the total cost of the worst case scenario. Let’s say an N-Plant in or near a big city goes Chernobyl. The cost must include the cost of building a new plant, the cost of land that will be unusable for at least hundreds of years, the cost of insurance payments to all those injured or killed as well as their medical expenses and replacement wages and more. It is difficult to determine the cost of extra cancers caused around the world but this must be added in, (Go to epidemiology). If the cause of the accident can be found then we must add in the cost of fixing this defect in all other power plants. I’ve probably forgotten something here, but you get the idea. I asked a real-estate guy how much it would cost to lease the city of LA for 500 years but he choked instead of answering.
Now, there are other lines of thought: What if the ocean level comes up due to Global Warming? What would be the effect on all the N-Plants in the world? What would be the cleanup cost? It is obvious that the costs begin to exceed the global GDP. In real engineering all these calculations are done. In aeronautical engineering all these things and more must be taken into consideration before the plane is allowed to fly: but they still crash sometimes.
I did metallurgy on parts for nuclear power plants and as a result of that experience, I don’t want to live on the same continent with one N-Plant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement