Calls for democratic debate on nuclear power in France are increasing. B. Dessus and B. Laponche present in a clear, documented and convincing manner the arguments that can weigh in favor of an energy transition.
A timely book. At a time when the nuclear issue is finally resurfacing in the political debate, it is important to see things clearly. And above all to go beyond the distressing level to which politicians on the left and right today confine the debate on a vital question for our society, of course, but also for those of all our neighbors, the radioactive clouds rarely respecting the boundaries. between states. For decades, the democratic debate on nuclear energy has been blocked, citizen intervention stifled. The domain falls under the Reason of State. It is impossible and unthinkable to give up nuclear power in France: the continuation of the current nuclear policy in the same way is inevitable. To question this dogma is to undermine both reason and the country. Citizens have less and less say on social issues that primarily concern them.
Why get out of nuclear power ?
The great merit of Benjamin Dessus and Bernard Laponche is to offer the ordinary citizen, in a simple and understandable style, a rational, argued and solidly documented plea in favor of phasing out nuclear power. The cards are laid down from the cover page: Put an end to nuclear power but the most interesting thing in the work is not the title but what the subtitle announces: Why and How ?
Both authors are recognized specialists in energy issues. They worked respectively at Edf and the Atomic Energy Commission before occupying both positions of responsibility at the French Agency for Energy Management. For around twenty years they have been publishing works and articles on both the technological and economic dimensions of the issue.
The reasons for putting an end to nuclear power are known: they relate to the protection of the human species and the planet. Nothing less. Serious accidents have occurred at Three Miles Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. It is an illusion to think that the French nuclear fleet is protected in the long term from a catastrophe of the same kind, or even worse. Especially since the use of mox as fuel considerably aggravates the risks. Assuming that this does not occur, the management of nuclear waste is far from being resolved, in the medium, but especially in the long term. The reckless spread of nuclear technologies also risks greatly increasing the risks of conflict, blackmail or nuclear aggression.
The authors are not the first to say this as this diagnosis is now obvious. To the point that our immediate neighbors, Germany, Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have given up or are in the process of giving up on a technology that carries so many risks for the generations of today and tomorrow.
But the essence of the work is not there. It is in the richness of the documentation and the relevance of the argumentation that undermine many established certainties. Among other things, the frequently hammered out idea that France is too involved in the process to consider phasing out nuclear power without returning us to the era of the candle. A close analysis of costs shows that the economic and social results of an energy transition scenario and an exit from nuclear power in twenty years is not only possible but can prove positive in terms of the fight against precariousness and for employment. .
Many of the arguments put forward by nuclear enthusiasts turn out to be pure lies, including that of the energy independence that nuclear power plants would ensure in the long term for our country. Curiously, the official energy reports completely ignore the purchase of uranium. However, this material necessary for the production of nuclear energy is entirely imported. In this area, we depend on the goodwill of Canada, Niger and Kazakhstan. Scenarios for the continuation of nuclear power thus offer more economic and financial hazards than scenarios for phasing out nuclear power. And the costs generated by the exit are not necessarily greater than those of maintaining the status quo.
The advantages of the energy transition
It is these positive scenarios, clearly presented, which constitute the newest and most exciting part of the work. They undoubtedly deserve to be discussed within the framework of a debate that is both scientific and democratic. But the main thing is that they are now made available to a wide audience, in a form understandable by everyone with their advantages and disadvantages, the first seeming to win by far.
For the authors, the energy transition is based on three principles of action:
- Energy sobriety
- Energy efficiency
- The use of renewable energies
In fact, the margin for maneuver constituted by the only energy savings achievable through reductions in electricity consumption is still immense. Without us really noticing it, over the past thirty years, energy consumption has decreased relatively in European countries: between 1979 and 2007, energy consumption per capita only increased by 6% while gross domestic product per capita increased by 67 %. These savings come partly from structural changes in the economies of European countries but also from improvements in energy efficiency, in industry and in buildings. Huge room for maneuver still remains open. Germany has been on this path for a long time and the results are there. Not France. And yet ! In 1998, the Germans consumed the same amount of domestic energy per capita as the French (950 kWh per capita). Ten years later, they consume the same and we, 28 % more (1230kWh per inhabitant). This gap of 28 % more is explained by a German political desire to control household electricity consumption as best as possible through incentive policies for appliance producers, energy taxes and CO2etc….
The authors imagine, at the end of the book, what a German-style nuclear exit scenario would concretely represent for our country, year by year. Realistic scenario therefore. The successive closure of reactors chosen according to their condition and built from 1977 to 1985 would reduce nuclear production from 409 TWh in 2009 to 180 TWh in 2020. How then can we meet the electricity needs of the French population in 2020 ? Priority must be given to electricity savings in the various sectors including the residential and tertiary sectors which alone represent two thirds of electricity consumption. A proactive electricity saving policy could thus make it possible to reduce the need for electricity production in France, from 516 TWh in 2009, to 390 in 2020 and 340 in 2031, while maintaining the comfort of the French. Savings of around 50 % are possible in the areas of domestic heating, domestic hot water, cold, private and public lighting ; air conditioning, office automation, household appliances, in particular through a policy of thermal renovation of buildings and a gradual eradication of electric heating.
The second part of the scenario concerns the replacement of nuclear power. Current projections make it possible to design by 2031 a production of 110 to 140 TWh of wind power, 40 TWh of biomass electricity, 50 to 70 TWh of voltaic, 10 to 20 of other renewables (geothermal energy, marine energies , hydraulic… In short, we could get there ! One thing is certain and the authors are right to point out it in their conclusion: France’s splendid isolation in the field of nuclear energy risks costing us dearly.