Nuclear and climate change: Stop misconceptions!
Climate: what do scientists say?
According to the international scientific community, the rise in the average temperature of the globe must be kept below + 2 ° C to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change. To this end, global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by at least 80% by 2050, compared to 1990. As for the industrialized countries, the first emitters of greenhouse gases, they must have already reduced their emissions by 40% by 2020! [1]
Technology "off topic" and inefficient
75% of global greenhouse gas emissions come from sectors unrelated to electricity production, or for which using electricity is particularly poor: agriculture, forestry, industrial processes, transport, heating, etc. [2]. Nuclear is therefore irrelevant!
Its ability to reduce the remaining 25% of emissions is extremely poor. Far from being anti-nuclear, the International Energy Agency encourages, against all reason, the continuous growth in energy consumption. However, it calculates that the contribution of nuclear power to the reduction of CO2 emissions would be barely 6% at a cost of at least 1 billion euros ... against 000% for energy savings and 54% for renewable energy, at a much lower cost! [21]
Since it takes about 10 years to build a single reactor, this derisory and hypothetical reduction would not start until after 2020, so far too late.
Yes, nuclear emits greenhouse gases!
The nuclear industry emits significant quantities of greenhouse gases, linked to the life cycle of the reactors (construction, dismantling, etc.) and their fuel (extraction, transport, reprocessing, etc.). But above all, unlike other technologies, nuclear power does not recover the heat released during the production of electricity. It therefore requires producing additional energy for our heat needs. Producing electricity and heat in co-generation makes it possible to emit 7 times less greenhouse gases than a nuclear energy system! [4]
Nuclear: expensive ... and counterproductive!
For one euro invested, energy efficiency and certain renewable energies are up to 11 times more efficient than nuclear to reduce greenhouse gases! [5] However, nuclear technology is a real financial chasm. As a result, it hampers the rapid and massive development of real solutions against climate change.
Indeed, nuclear power requires considerable investments in infrastructure and monopolizes huge public subsidies, including 2/3 of the European research budgets on energy. [6] Since 1974, OECD countries have officially spent 55% of their energy research budgets on nuclear, or $ 250 billion. [7] The future costs of dismantling nuclear installations and managing radioactive waste will amount to hundreds of billions of euros.
Power plants vulnerable to climate change
The warmer it is, the less operational the nuclear reactors: 1/4 of the French nuclear fleet had to be shut down in 2003 because of the summer heat wave! In addition, nuclear consumes 25 times more water per kWh produced than wind and solar energy. [000] Extreme climatic events (storms, floods, etc.), which are increasing in frequency, increase the risk of accidents. Thus, in 8, the French nuclear power plant of Blayais, which borders Bordeaux, came close to disaster due to a flood, and the city was nearly evacuated. [1999] Flooded by the tsunami of December 9, 26, the Indian power station of Kalpakkam was urgently shut down. 2004 families were reportedly evacuated the next day as a precaution. Worrying levels of radioactivity were measured 15 months later in an area of 000 km around. [2]
A polluting and dangerous industry
In normal operation, the nuclear industry pollutes water and soil, particularly during uranium mining. It constantly releases radioactivity into the environment. A German scientific study has shown an increase of 117% of childhood leukemia up to 5 km from certain plants. [11] The very official International Commission on Radiological Protection itself affirms that "any dose of radiation carries a carcinogenic and genetic risk". [12] A major accident, always possible, would contaminate vast areas for thousands of years, and there is no solution to managing nuclear waste. Finally, the proliferation of nuclear reactors favors the proliferation of atomic weapons.
Create more jobs with other energies
In less than 10 years, Germany has created nearly 300 jobs in renewable energy [000]. This still emerging sector already employed at least 13 million people worldwide in 2,3. Industrialized countries are not alone in benefiting from this, and some are developing some of the most dynamic solar energy programs in the world. Thus, 2008 photovoltaic roofs have been installed in a few years in Bangladesh, and this sector could create 100 jobs in the country by 000. [100] With equal investment, energy savings and renewable energies create 000 times more jobs than nuclear! [2015]
The real solutions exist, let's use them!
Many relevant measures must be implemented in terms of energy policy (energy efficiency, energy savings, development of renewable energies, etc.), but also in other sectors: fight against deforestation, transition to sustainable agriculture, relocation of economic activities,… Without forgetting the reduction of methane emissions, a gas that heats 49 times more than CO2. Its recovery from French landfills would avoid far more greenhouse gases than the construction of 3 EPR reactors! [16]
Numerous studies [17] have shown that the energy alternatives already available would make it possible both to fight climate change effectively and to do without nuclear electricity entirely… which today represents only 2,4% of energy consumed in the world! [18]