nuclear power plant

Why Australia Should Look to France on Nuclear Power

There are good reasons why many European nations are on track to meet their Paris Climate Agreement carbon reductions.

First, most of these nations are small and highly urbanised. Their citizens tend to use more public transport, drive smaller cars, live in smaller dwellings, and operate smaller appliances than Australians or Americans.

Perhaps more importantly, many EU nations derive much of their energy from nuclear power.

This free report reveals the political lie that costs us $4 billion a day. You pay for it on your power bill, at the fuel pump, and when you buy your groceries. Find out more here.

France leads the way with nuclear power

France leads the way, getting about 75% of its electricity from its 19 nuclear plants.

With an eye on pressuring the rest of the world to do more to reduce emissions, French President Emmanuel Macron now says France, who promised to limit its amount of nuclear energy use, will now slowdown this process.

There is widespread discontent in his country regarding high energy prices, AP reports. And so, on Tuesday, Macron said he will close 14 out of 58 nuclear reactors by 2035.

Previously, the cap on electricity derived from nuclear plants was set to be at 50% by 2025. This cap was promised by Macron’s predecessor, Francois Hollande. Macron has now pushed this target out to 2035, as mentioned above.

So what will replace nuclear energy in France? None other than renewable energy. Macron has stated that his priorities lie with stopping France’s economy relying on fuel that causes global warming.

PS: Jason Stevenson exposes the ‘man made global warming’ hoax that we’ve been fed by the funding-hungry scientists — and reveals what could be in store for the next 20–30 years.

Alana Sumic

Alana Sumic

Alana Sumic is an editor and writer for The Australian Tribune. She has a Bachelor of Arts from La Trobe University and a Masters in Publishing and Editing from Monash University.

She specialises in national and international politics and current affairs. She’s passionate about delivering the unfiltered stories that matter to you, on all topics.

Comments: 2

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

  1. France invested early in nuclear power, in conditions when there was plenty of cheap petroleum. We are too late, our population is growing too fast and too expensively, and Generation IV is a pipe dream. In 2008 I worked that we would need around 225.6 thousand MWe nuclear power plants each supplying 25PJ, plus an average of 4.8 new nuclear plants per year to supply annual growth in consumption. Each plant’s initial cost would be around $USD2 billion, in an economy currently valued by the World Bank at $US768 billion, but heavily indebted and privatised. These costs would have gone up since.

    Details below (first published in Chapter 19, France and Australia after oil, in Sheila Newman, (Ed) The Final Energy Crisis, Pluto Press, 2008.

    According to the ABARE, [1] in the financial year 2005-6 Australia’s total primary energy consumption was 5640.7 petajoules (PJ) [2], growing at an average of 2.2 per cent or about 120 PJ per annum over the past 20 years. No-one is seriously suggesting replacing all this with nuclear. The suggested figure is more like 25 power plants in the next 15 years supplying one third of Australia’s (doubled) electricity demand. [3] But many people believe that nuclear will actually take care of the problem of fossil-fuel depletion, permitting business as usual.

    To do so would theoretically take 225.6 thousand MWe nuclear power plants each supplying 25PJ, [4] plus an average of 4.8 new nuclear plants per year to supply annual growth in consumption. Each plant’s initial cost would be around $USD2 billion, in an economy currently valued by the World Bank at $US768 billion, but heavily indebted and privatised.

    Of that 5640.7PJ primary energy, around 55 per cent comes from petroleum (35 per cent) and gas (19 per cent). [5] To rely on nuclear to replace this by powering an electric car or hydrogen road transport system is a further absurdity. In addition to the 225.6 imagined nuclear power plants, more would be required to supply electricity to plug-in electric cars and to split water into hydrogen to carry more electricity to fuel the creation of new infrastructure to manufacture and service hydrogen-carrying electric vehicles, requiring more electricity (obviously).

    Each 1000 MWe nuclear power plant would itself require around 1.3PJ per annum or 52PJ over a 40 yr life-time according to the Australian Uranium Association. [6]
    [1] http://www.abareconomics.com/interactive/energy_july07/index.html
    [2] A petajoule (PJ) is 1015 (one quadrillion) joules
    [3]“Nuclear Energy Prospects in Australia,”Briefing Paper 44, September 2007, http://www.uic.com.au/nip44.htm
    [4]Ian Hore-Lacey Director – Information, Australian Uranium Association, email correspondence, Fri 11/30/2007 10:59 PM provided these petajoule estimates.
    [5]“Primary energy consumption in Australia by fuel 2005-2006”, http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/energy/energy_07/energy_update_07.pdf
    [6]Using centrifugal separation and depending on quality of uranium ore. http://www.uic.com.au/nip57.htm

  2. France & the UK have had nuclear power plants for a very long time & they don’t even have the raw material to dig up but we do. If France can build our new subs, get them here to build nuclear power stations because as sure as night follows day we will need them & sooner than the politicians realise.