Transatlantic Discrepancies: A Comparative Analysis Between France and the United States’ Use of Nuclear Energy
The benefits of nuclear energy are weighed against potential climate impacts, both good and bad. Source: Kurzgesagt
Introduction
The cultivation of nuclear technology, concerning energy, in the United States is one which has not been steady, globally, but comes with a mixed picture. Some countries, such as France, have chosen to implement such technology on a large scale due to political issues that have forced implementation (i.e., the 1960’s Oil Crisis). On the other hand, some countries such as the United States have remained at the lowest level of cultivating (clean) energy sources that aren’t derived from exploiting fossil fuels. By analyzing the energy policy of different countries, specifically that in the nuclear sector, a higher degree of comprehension may be obtained in explanations of current policy as it has been informed by decades of changes, as they relates to history.
What does it mean when something is said to be nuclear?
When something is nuclear, it simply means that the process pertains to the nucleus of an atom, responsible for containing protons and neutrons. From radiation to chemistry to energy, nuclear science is all around us. As simple as being used to detect smoke via a smoke detector, and as complicated as being used as a primary research method for cancer treatment, the technology has countless applications in daily human life. Stakeholders in nuclear technology include 18th-century physicists such as Italy’s Enrico Fermi, the creator of the first artificial nuclear reactor, and Netherland’s Niels Bohr, a stakeholder in the discovery of splitting Uranium atoms producing nuclear fission (the most critical aspect of nuclear power generation). Over centuries, the cultivation and usage of nuclear technology has taken many turns. Humanity’s usage of nuclear technology has presented itself in ways that are both beneficial and destructive to our well-being.
Nuclear technology offers a plethora of benefits in the realm of clean energy. Acting as a low-cost carbon energy source, nuclear power is attractive, with some countries, such as France, relying on nuclear energy sources for over 50% of overall consumption. At the forefront of dialogue concerning warfare, however, an instance that comes to mind is the U.S.’ dropping of the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an event that signaled the end of World War II. Used as a retaliatory effort against Japan following the country’s bombing of Pearl Harbor, scientists at the time recommended against the usage of the atomic bomb as a weapon. This event serves as the first and only instance where nuclear weapons have been used in armed conflicts.
Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the late 20th century, narratives surrounding the use of nuclear technology have vastly changed. Furthermore, scientific and diplomatic efforts have championed the use of nuclear technology in a way that is helpful rather than destructive. For instance, nuclear energy may be used as a means to produce clean energy. The first instance of nuclear technology in the United States as a means of energy production is the 1951 creation of electricity from nuclear energy at the Experimental Breeder Reactor-I in Arco, Idaho; the experiment lit four lightbulbs. It is also essential to recognize that in the nearly eighty years since nuclear energy’s first cultivation in the United States, nuclear reactors have been the crux of numerous horrific accidents worldwide—the most significant and notable of these being the meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine. The accident released a massive quantity of radioactive materials into the atmosphere, making the area of Eastern Europe unlivable; deadly radioactive materials spread as far as 300 miles from the reactor site. Nuclear warfare and meltdowns such as Chernobyl and about three more major reactor accidents have given way for international regulations to be placed on nuclear technology. Mid-20th century regulations mark a historical beginning of nuclear non-proliferation; that is, efforts put forth to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Below is a list summarizing current diplomatic agreements and treaties that exist within the United Nations, an entity which plays a critical role in nuclear non-proliferation, to regulate nuclear weapons:
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (TBT)
As nuclear weaponry has been a key aspect of discourse concerning nuclear technology, it is important to study aspects of nuclear technology that are newer to the court of public opinion. I have highlighted a stakeholder topic, that is, the cultivation of nuclear energy as a proponent of clean energy production. A case study of two global powers will be carried out, displaying the use of nuclear energy in varying ways—hopefully conveying the helpful and harmful practices each nation exhibits in a quest for energy production. With this, a question may be raised: to what extent has France been a proponent of nuclear energy sources compared to the United States since the late 20th century, and how is each nation (if at all) contributing to positive environmental policy in the process? With the majority of France’s energy coming from clean nuclear sources, their carbon dioxide emissions being amongst the lowest in the world, and the United States being the world’s highest consumer of fossil fuel, contributing to 22% of the world’s fossil fuel consumption, comparing the nations is critical to learning more about global nuclear order as it relates to the environment.
Case Study: France and the United States
A country possessing a quite compact territory, France’s centralized government along with its geographical size have made it a haven for cohesive policy-making. This includes ideas of environmental policy strategies, the umbrella under which nuclear energy initiatives fall. In an interview conducted via email with a nuclear physics faculty member at UNC-Chapel Hill, who wishes to remain anonymous, they state that “An obvious difference in approaches between France and the US will derive from matters of political and physical geography.” In terms that are more practical, and align more with the basis of nuclear initiatives, this means that France can craft and implement very uniform policies given that they have very few regional and local barriers. Geographical and political stances in the US and France are vastly different from one another. From the vantage point of geography, the US is much larger in land mass than France. Furthermore, France’s use of a semi-presidential system differs from that of the US which uses a presidential system. Such differences impact each nation's ability to put forth policy, in this case pertaining to nuclear energy and each country’s ability to implement it as part of a clean energy initiative. These examples detail the correlation between geography and politics and their ability to work differently in varying areas. In the late 20th century, France’s implementation of the Messmer Plan spearheaded an ongoing dependency on the nuclear power sector. The plan was put in place when the 1970’s global oil crisis forced countries around the world to reconsider the manners by which they were using and obtaining foreign oil. In the same interview conducted with a professor at UNC-Chapel Hill, they state that “When France decided on their nuclear approach [in the late 20th century], it was done from the top [down]…in response to their lack of other resources in the face of an oil crisis.” During this time, France made a point to act in a uniform manner that was decisive in order to secure energy independence from other countries. In a sense, the 1970’s set the stage for what we now see today as a nuclear energy-dependent France. Oppositely, in response to the oil crisis, the United States did not change the way in which they were obtaining energy, however, they did create the Department of Energy. The country simply rationed what they had and encouraged lower speed limits and conservation of fuel; however, no real progress was made as far as finding a more sustainable alternative to fossil fuels at this time. Some may say that the reason that France is able to operate under such a clean initiative by relying so heavily on nuclear energy is due to its geographical, small size. Referencing the same interview with a UNC-Chapel Hill faculty member, who is to say that “individual states with strong economies [such as California and Texas]” can’t go about generating their own energy by way of nuclear power? In doing so, the US set the stage in the 1970’s for the country we see today—one that is reliant on the exploitation of fossil fuels for a majority of their fuel, relying on clean alternatives such as nuclear power for only about 20% of overall consumption. On the other hand, nuclear is about 70% responsible for all of France’s energy consumption. France is not choosing the most cost-effective option, but they have proven that industrial economies can still operate successfully without reliance on fossil fuels. The energy choices the country has made have paved the way for low carbon emissions contributing to environmental policy initiatives within France and in the European Union (EU) as a whole. It is also important to recognize that nuclear power comes with its limitations as far as acceptance, perhaps leading to why some nations such as the United States have chosen not to fully adopt the practice. While debates still exist regarding the disposal of nuclear waste and the safety of nuclear facilities themselves, it is important to recognize the gains the US would face (environmentally and economically) if they adopted nuclear energy as a primary energy source by making the implementation and policymaking on nuclear energy spearheaded by the states.
By looking at each nation’s approach to nuclear energy usage, it is clear that France’s more centralized structure of policy and government actions led to a decisive path to cleaner energy production. The US, oppositely, faces a political environment that is fragmented in the realm of environmental policy. However, the US still has the potential to grow its nuclear sector through the means of state-level incentives (simulating the geographical size of France) and innovation of technology. In this discussion, it is critical to remember that the use of nuclear technology in the realm of energy comes with implications that are both constructive (for the economy and the environment) and destructive. To quote the interviewee’s closing thoughts, “States should keep in mind France’s case where an executive decision was made to forcefully develop a long-term, visionary nuclear program.” Lessons like these offer commentary on how a determined national policy framework can drive the transformation of large-scale consumption of energy. Without acknowledging the military background of such technology, one may not truly gain context for the historical usage of the technology; moreover, this knowledge is key for continuing efforts that ensure the safety of the environment and its citizens as well as non-proliferation on a global scale.