France: the end of a 40-year political consensus on the merits of nuclear power

[kristopher]

French Primary Reflects Shift on Nuclear Power
BY MAX COLCHESTER

PARIS—When he goes to vote in Sunday's Socialist Party primaries, Christian Bataille will vote against one of his principles: the pro-nuclear Socialist lawmaker will support a French presidential hopeful who has vowed to phase out atomic power.

"It's a bit contradictory," said Mr. Bataille, who has headed a French parliamentary commission on nuclear energy. "But I am a long-term supporter of a candidate who has recently been swayed by antinuclear campaigners."

Like many in his own party Mr. Bataille is struggling with a new reality in France: the end of a 40-year political consensus on the merits of nuclear power....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204774604576628900180745680.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The rest is behind WSJ's pay firewall, but this seemed worth sharing.

[FBaggins]

1. "During the election I will not stay quiet"

Mr. Bataille, the Socialist lawmaker who supports Ms. Aubry, said he hopes such political bargaining won't have negative consequences on France's nuclear program.

"During the election I will not stay quiet," he said. "If stupid things are said about nuclear, I will point out that they are stupid."


...snip...

"It's dramatic for France," said Christian Pierret, a Socialist Party member and former energy minister. "To win a few votes, we risk damaging the image of an industrial sector that we dominate."

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[txlibdem]

4. Those first few pictures

are of the heroes of Chernobyl, yes? They knew that they were getting lethal doses of radiation and were only allowed to work at the site for a few minutes at a time. They did it for their country, for the people who live in that area. They willingly gave their lives so that others might live and they volunteered to do that work.

Contrast that to the people who live near to a coal power plant. There is a higher cancer rate, thousands of people die each year due to the pollution from each plant. Asthma rates are abnormally high for the poor people who live downwind of a coal power plant. Risk of heart attack is far higher than in the general population as well. Do you claim that they volunteer to pay all the hospital and doctor bills that coal power costs them? Do you claim that they volunteer to have heart attacks, possibly die?

That is the difference.

As for the rest of your post it isn't worth responding to. All it proves is that there are a certain number of gullible people who can be scared by the nuclear boogie-man and then go out on the street like they've been told to do... just like good little sheep. Follow the leader... right off the cliff.

[provis99]

5. the best you can come up with is a false dilemma fallacy?

[txlibdem]

6. Nice one-liner accusation.

Could you please type out the reason why you feel that way, what is your proof, what is the evidence of your claim???

[madokie]

7. Where is your proof of anything you typed there in that little ditty

I know its there somewhere :hi:

[kristopher]

8. It is a clear either/or choice; but you are not identifying the choice correctly

The proof of the claim made by is in what you wrote - it is self evident.
A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes). For example, "It wasn't medicine that cured Ms. X, so it must have been a miracle."
False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice ("If you are not with us, you are against us.") But the fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception (e.g., "I thought we were friends, but all my friends were at my apartment last night and you weren't there.")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Since you know the renewable option is there, it is clear you are intentionally using this fallacy.

However, you are incorrectly identifying the problem which is leading to an inaccurate categorization of the solutions.

We are discussing a choice is between systems. The options are either:
A) centralized generation comprised mostly of coal and nuclear
or
B) distributed generation from renewables.

You are tying to portray it incorrectly because nuclear - your preferred technology - doesn't fit into a distributed system. You apparently are completely willing to perpetuate the existing system of coal and nuclear in order to protect the nuclear industry.

[txlibdem]

9. Your post attempts to steer the debate away from the topic

It is not a choice between A) coal and nuclear, vs B) Sunshine and Summer Breezes.

We have a REAL problem on our hands. Anyone who's lived through the past 30 years of weather should be able to put 2 and 2 together and realize that mankind is F'ing up the planet and that it is fossil fuels that are doing all the damage.

The choice is:
A) New nuclear power plants + renewable energy and a faster end to deadly fossil fuels, or
B) Half-hearted efforts at greenwashing by the fossil sellers and continued addiction to fossil fuels -- till we're past the climate's tipping point (and are therefore totally and royally F**ked for thousands of years).

[kristopher]

10. The topic is the fact that the French want to leave nuclear power behind and shift to renewables.

Nuclear power is only slightly more popular in France than it is in Germany with about 12% of the people wanting to ever build another nuclear plant. The social power of the nuclear corporations in France is finally slipping, and it's about time.

[txlibdem]

11. They want to leave Gen I and Gen II/II+ behind... as well they should.

I am a proponent of skipping GEN III/III+ plants altogether and moving forward to Gen IV. There is no reason, in my mind to build another unsafe nuclear plant that uses expensive fuel rods made from a dwindling resource (Uranium) -- and then only use 5% of the energy in the fuel before permanently storing the fuel rods in containment. Idiocy, IMO.

On that score we seem to agree, you and I, as well as agreeing with the French populace.

Generation IV is the only acceptable option for continued use of nuclear power.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

19. No, they want to build renewables.

In other posts you've been passionate about defending all nuclear. I suppose where you actually stand depends on how much time someone spends showing how discredited your arguments about nuclear are.

Take the non-existent Gen IV you are now touting when all else has failed. It is just that - non-existent.

[FBaggins]

20. It isn't an "either/or" thing.

It's both.

Just as it should be.

[kristopher]

21. That's what I used to think.

But I came to learn that they are parts of mutually exclusive systems; centralized thermal is built around economics that drive expanding energy use and distributed generation is built around economics that are geared towards conservation and efficiency.

I was wrong then, and you are wrong now.

[FBaggins]

24. "geared towards conservation and efficiency"

Which in this case means "learn to live without reliable power"

[kristopher]

27. A distributed grid is MORE reliable than a centralized grid.

What a coincidence, I just made a remark in post 26 about you and honesty.

[FBaggins]

29. What an odd use of the word "is"

Do you know what it means?

[kristopher]

31. A distributed grid and a centralized grid are not an unknown quantities.

It is basic electric circuit design.

If nuclear is such a good idea, why the need to mislead others?

[FBaggins]

33. But a distributed renewables-only grid of commercial size exists only in theory

You therefore cannot make blanket statements claiming that it's a settled fact that such a grid is more reliable than the ones that every modern nation uses today.

Simulations are only as good as the assumptions that they're based on. When the people making the assumptions have their own biases, they may not even realize how badly their estimates are off.

[kristopher]

36. That isn't true.

We have a wide range of configurations in the various grids around the world, some of them far more centralized than others.

This is not in question, you are wrong.

[FBaggins]

38. Point to one.

One single commercial-scale grid that fits the definition of a renewable distributed grid.

Somewhere in the world that they've demonstrated with real performance that such a grid is more reliable than the one that EVERY developed nation uses.

[kristopher]

40. That isn't required...

I'm not going to go on a fishing expedition to assuage your Sean Hannity type of nonsensical demands.

I presented an acceptable study by government researchers tasked with looking at the issue. Do you have ANY source which has looked at the issue and agrees with you?

[Zoeisright]

3. We can't control that shit, the poison will escape, and it's unbelievably expensive.

About time.

[kristopher]

13. French presidential race: Sarkozy vs. Hollande

French presidential race: Sarkozy vs. Hollande

(AP) PARIS — The resurgent French left, riding on popular anger at conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy and global financial markets, endorsed former Socialist Party chief Francois Hollande on Sunday as its candidate for next year's presidential elections.
...
Yet opinion polls suggest Hollande could easily unseat Sarkozy, who is widely expected to seek a second five-year term in elections in April and May. Leftist voters see Hollande as their most electable candidate, as they hunger for the Socialists' first presidential victory since 1988.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/15/ap/europe/main20120999.shtml


Hollande Wins French Socialist Nomination to Challenge Sarkozy

...Hollande has said he will seek cut backs on the proportion of electricity France gets from nuclear power to 50 percent by 2025 from 75 percent now, adding that he will halt plans to build a second EPR reactor in Penly while finishing the building of the first third-generation reactor in Flamanville.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-16/hollande-wins-french-socialist-nomination-to-challenge-sarkozy.html

[FBaggins]

14. Awww... poor kris. Even the socialist party wasn't willing to pick an anti-nuke.

Must be devastating for you.

[kristopher]

15. He is for phasing out nuclear and you call him pronuclear?

That is right in line with every other conclusion you draw...

[FBaggins]

16. He isn't for phasing out nuclear

He is in favor (as am I) of reducing the proportion of their internal generation from nuclear by 1/3. This makes perfect sense because their "all eggs in one basket" approach has hurt them in the past (as it would with any basket).

The reported 75% figure shows that this is correct, because they produce far MORE than 75% of their own consumption with nuclear... it's just that they export it to other countries.

They should construct additional generation to give them more flexibility and to avoid running reactors as peaking facilities - which simply doesn't make sense. They need to boost renewables and gas.

But that doesn't mean that they have to shut down reactors... because they'll be exporting more power in the future.

You know very well who you were rooting for in that primary and how you would spin it if she did. The Socialists were struggling internally with one group that wanted to diversify their generation and one that wanted to end nuclear as soon as possible. She lost and she lost decisivly (among just the subset of the population more likely to favor getting rid of nuclear power). You'll just have to deal with that.

[kristopher]

17. You're going to get dizzy spinning like that...

France is the flagship of the nuclear industry and they have lost control of the messaging - first Germany and now France.

Where is that nuclear revival - you know, the "renaissance of the atom"?

It is dying the death of a thousand self inflicted cuts- bleeding from the wounds of quadrupling actual costs over projected lies; demonstrated failure to have any hope of building reactors without massive government support; the inexorable move by Iran to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of commercial nuclear energy; the ongoing lack of a viable solution to waste disposal; and the massive safety failure represented by Fukushima.

Sure, this is a "win" for the nuclear industry.


http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/4576--China-must-alter-nuclear-policy-1-

[FBaggins]

18. Where is that revival? Perhaps in countries that weren't already close to 100% nuclear?

Like... oh I don't know... China, India, USA, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and on and on.

Sure, this is a "win" for the nuclear industry.

It certainly isn't a win for the opposition. The socialists offered two paths... and rejected your position soundly. We'll see in the general election whether France moves at all in the end.

[kristopher]

22. My position is that the control by the nuclear industry over the decision making...

... and public information process should be eradicated. I had no "candidate" at all in these elections, my only desire, in accordance with the position I just stated, is thatI want Sarkozy to be thrown out of office.

[FBaggins]

23. Did you expect anyone to believe that?

You know very well what your spin would have been if the clearly anti-nuke candidate had won the nomination.

Instead, even among the socialist left, she got blown out.

[kristopher]

25. Keep trying to spin it as a win but they are going to start replacing nuclear with renewables.

I told you what my position is and unlike you, I strive to be honest.

[FBaggins]

26. One thing is clear.

You need to "strive" a little harder. :-)

[kristopher]

28. You'll find no false statements by me.

As for you, we only need to look upthread at post 24:

FBaggins (1000+ posts) Tue Oct-18-11 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. "geared towards conservation and efficiency"
Which in this case means "learn to live without reliable power"

As many times as I've posted the NREL study on the topic, you certainly know full well that a distributed grid is more reliable than a centralized grid. Yet you keep repeating the false coal/nuclear industry talking point about reliability.

[FBaggins]

30. Of course we will. The only question is whether they're examples of ignorance or intentional deceit

As many times as I've posted the NREL study on the topic, you certainly know full well that a distributed grid is more reliable than a centralized grid.

Now see? There's an excellent example. You find a single position paper that supports your position and immediately shift to the presumption that the debate is now closed and anyone repeating any other position is now participating in a knowing falsehood.

The amusing fact is that you're blind to the hypocrisy of automatically rejecting as biased any paper (regardless of peer-review, credentials, or acceptance by established authorities) put out by anyone that you can paint (accurately or falsely) as being aligned with a given "industry".

[kristopher]

32. The NREL paper is a publicly available exemplar from a reasonably valid source.

If you can dispute it, by all means do so. However, I warn you that it is another of those long established and well-known-by-experts pieces of information that so plague the false claims of the nuclear industry on the anonymous internet.

You also write, "The amusing fact is that you're blind to the hypocrisy of automatically rejecting as biased any paper (regardless of peer-review, credentials, or acceptance by established authorities) put out by anyone that you can paint (accurately or falsely) as being aligned with a given "industry"."

Part of my training and education involved learning how to identify and establish the validity of source material in research. I apply those standards across the board here in a consistent manner. I would therefore be extremely happy if you could show me those instances and sources where I've done what you claim. I also post within a structure of accountability that extends beyond the pages of DU which would be negatively affected by my posting in anything like the dishonest and misleading manner you do.

[FBaggins]

34. Oh what a crock

Part of my training and education involved learning how to identify and establish the validity of source material in research. I apply those standards across the board here in a consistent manner.

Easy to disprove.

You accept Gundersen/Caldicott/Busby as authoritative sources. Your ability to "identify and establish the validity of source material" is thus proven worthless.

[kristopher]

35. That demonstrates that you lack the skillset I'm referring to

If you can't parse my comments better than that you lack both the skills and the candlepower to understand what you read. Alternatively, you are engaging in another of your attempts to promote disinformation about me because I'm critical of nuclear power.

I do not "accept Gundersen/Caldicott/Busby as authoritative sources" without question. What I've done is defend their qualifications to act as a legitimate voice in the debate. That was necessary due to the way you and other nuclear proponents attempted to discredit them with invalid criticisms that were nothing but ad hominem.

I challenge you to produce one example where I've used them as an authoritative source, ie "Busby said it so it must be true". The closest you'll come is when I clarified the discussion around Caldicott's example of dosing related to the toxicity of plutonium - which was, again, in response to efforts on the part of nuclear supporters to mis-characterize her statement in order to discredit her.

[FBaggins]

37. They aren't "legitimate voice(s) in the debate"

One is a shill and the other two are quacks.

[kristopher]

39. Like I said about ad hominem...

It is typical of what you have to offer for the failed technology you are trying to foist on an uninformed public with deception.