\nYou present yourself as an
\nenvironmentalist supporter of nuclear power, is it compatible?
\n<\/b>
\nOf course! EFN, the association that I created and which now includes 10,000
\nmembers and signatories in 60 countries is attached to nuclear power, there is
\nno hidden message! Rather, it is explicit: we are pro-nuclear environmentalists,
\nand there are many of us!
\nWe are environmentalists, so we support the protection of the environment and a
\nsafe clean and respectful use of our planet resources. But we are not
\ndogmatically anti-nuclear as other environmental groups can be. We think we
\nhave an open attitude to scientific progress, accept it when it is useful and
\nreject it when it is detrimental.
\nWith specific nuclear, we believe that the nuclear weapons are not good for the
\nfuture of humanity. However the civil nuclear, provided it is clean and
\nenvironmentally friendly makes a useful contribution. That is why we are opposed
\nto the dogmatic attitude of anti-nuclear environmentalists who remain stubborn
\nwhereas there are not just disadvantages to nuclear power, there are also great
\nbenefits.<\/p>\nExactly, what are the advantages of
\nnuclear power?
\n<\/b>
\nAs far as environmental protection is concerned, the big difference between
\nnuclear power and the most dominant energies that are used today, namely gas,
\noil and coal, is what I call ‘a factor million ‘: 1 gram of uranium now
\nproduces as much energy as 1 ton of oil. One gram per ton, this is a report of
\none million.
\nIn environmental terms, it means that the burden that we will affect the planet
\nis a million times lower. With this factor one million, we start to use an
\nindustry that has a small impact.<\/span><\/div>\n\n
At the other end of the chain, it obviously remains
\nresidues of processed raw material. But it is then located on the same scale.
\nAs we had a million times less material, it also has a million times less
\nwaste. This is not an industry ‘zero waste’, but almost.<\/p>\nAlthough nuclear power produces less
\nwaste than the other sources of energy, is this waste more dangerous because of
\nits radioactivity?
\n<\/b>
\nYour question reflects the dogmatic attitude in which we are enclosed when
\ntalking about nuclear waste. We talk about the waste issue as if there was no
\nsolution. We often use the term ‘waste problem’. And yet, not only is there a
\nsolution to nuclear waste, but there are several.
\nFirstly nuclear waste can be reprocessed, and it is not the pipe dreams of a
\nmad scientist! This is something that is done on a daily basis, industrial,
\nperfectly safe and clean. It is that France is a leader in this field, and the
\nvery purpose of the La Hague plant is recycling and reprocessing the nuclear
\nmaterials.
\nWhen you take the used fuel out of the reactor, it still contains 96 % unburned
\nuranium, 1 % plutonium and 3 % of a cocktail of different substances which we
\ndo not know any possible use yet. Instead of doing like the Americans or Finns,
\nand throw out all this waste, it is a highly ecological concept to
\nreprocess and recycle it by separating the reusable part, ie 96 % of uranium
\nand 1 % plutonium. Only 3 % remains. So we divided by thirty the amount of
\nwaste, knowing that there were already a million times less energy than the other
\nenergies..
\nThis waste is not otherwise rejected or introduced into ecosystems, which could
\nhave unfortunate effects. They are carefully isolated and confined ecosystem
\nwith a new benefit: by definition, they are self-biodegradable. They decompose
\nspontaneously with time.<\/p>\n
But it takes a long, long time?
\n<\/b>
\nThere are two kinds of waste: those that break down quickly and those who do it
\nslowly. As for those who break down quickly, it is not a problem since they are
\nquickly gone. Now for those that last longer, such as uranium whose life is 750
\nmillion years for uranium-235 and three billion years for the 238, it is hardly
\nradioactive. Indeed it emits very little and it is not dangerous. It is in
\norders of magnitude of natural radioactivity, which is not dangerous.
\nThe ‘waste problem’ is not a problem at all. However, some anti-nuclear
\norganizations get the two categories mixed up. The waste is highly radioactive
\nwhen the fuel leaves the plant, it’s true. But those that last are not always highly
\nradioactive. We are told that the waste is highly radioactive and last a very
\nlong time but it is wrong. Radioactivity decreases exponentially. The danger is
\nonly at the beginning.<\/span><\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n
\n
We
\nhave talked about the beginning of the cycle, the end and the middle?<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n\n
\nNuclear power has the enormous advantage of not rejecting CO2 and does not
\ncontribute to global warming.<\/p>\nYou advocate a “new ecology”,
\nwhat is it?
\n<\/b>
\nThere is an old vision of ecology, now a bit outdated, which consists in being
\nsystematically against everything in general and especially nuclear, symbol of
\nthe ongoing dispute. However, there is now a new ecology, which I call smart
\necology, reasoned and reasonable, which studies the problem instead of lapidary
\njudgments without knowing the subject.
\nIn this ecology, there are very big names of the “historical” ecology
\nA co-founder of Greenpeace in 1971, Patrick Moore, is part of our association,
\nEFN. He was director of the International Environmental Organization for ten
\nyears and was the founding president of Greenpeace Canada for 16 years. We can
\nnot accuse him not to present ecological resum\u00e9! He left Greenpeace after a
\nfundamental disagreement, especially on the nuclear issue. It considers that
\nGreenpeace is wrong on that subject.
\nWe also have with us James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, which defines
\nthe Earth as a living being, able to regulate itself in order to maintain in its
\nsurface the ideal conditions for life, and represents the ideological cement of
\nthe environmental movement born in the 60s and 70s.<\/p>\n
Ecology today occupies the front of the
\npolitical scene, what is your position in relation to the Greens?
\n<\/b>
\nWe can wonder what the ecology comes to politics. Above all, ecology is a
\nscience. Can you imagine a Mathematics party? Or a movement of Republicans favorable
\nto Physics? Ecology is neither left nor right, it is a science that deserves to
\nbe studied in universities and has nothing to do with politics. It is an
\nanomaly that I hope will be corrected. For our part, we practice a scientific
\necology, where politics has no place. At EFN, we carefully take care not to be picked
\nup by anyone.<\/p>\n
What is the future of a movement like
\nyours?
\n<\/b>
\nWe represent the new green trend rising. We are more and more numerous. But the
\nmost difficult is to predict the future with precision. Are we going to
\npoliticize, I doubt it, for it would be detrimental to everything we have done
\nso far. Then, the Ecology parties already politicized, for now strictly
\nanti-nuclear, are they going to be given a big political slap and then understand
\nthat they have gone too far and to accept nuclear power? It would be quite good
\nnews,
\nI think if they continue to shut themselves up in their dogmatic attitude,
\ncompletely out of touch with reality, they will eventually disappear. Or
\nperhaps the voters will resolve the issue. When everyone will realize that some
\nenvironmentalists are just incompetent extremists, they will be bound to
\ndisappear.<\/p>\n
One of the major questions which worry
\nto voters is the cost of a nuclear exit …
\n<\/b>
\nComparing electricity tariffs in France and Germany, since many
\nenvironmentalists present Germany as the country to follow, French citizens pay
\nfor electricity 12 cents per kW\/h and emit in the atmosphere about 6 tons of
\ncarbon per year. Meanwhile, a German payroll is 23.6 cents kW\/h, almost double,
\nand emits pus in the atmosphere of 10 tons of CO2. Thus, it is true that they
\nhave much more wind than us, but that ‘many’ is a very small percentage in the
\nfinal electricity production. And as it is extremely expensive to install, they
\nsupplement with something quick and cheap, coal.
\nIn the end, the Germans are left with 10 % of renewable electricity, and the
\nrest is provided by coal or gas exports. So they work with 10 % (*) and 90 % of
\nown dirty, and we’ll do the opposite. So the Germans should rush to imitate the
\nFrench model.
\nIn the discussions which we are currently seeing for 2012, we always find the
\nsame question, very incomplete, which is knowing how much to reduce the share
\nof nuclear power in France. According to the opinions of each other, it comes
\nout completely, it stops 50 % or maintained what is currently.<\/p>\n
You want to increase the part of nuclear
\npower in France?
\n<\/b>
\nThis question is never asked. Should we think about increasing the part of
\nnuclear power in France? Indeed, while we are asking all these questions,
\narrive in force electric cars, which have an interesting future from an
\necological point of view, particularly in the context of the fight against CO2.
\nThis will therefore requires more electricity, and therefore more nuclear power,
\na totally carbon-free energy.
\nTo conclude, I will say that the phenomenon encountered in France is the same
\nworldwide. There is a kind of intellectual dictatorship fact that one has no
\nright to talk about nuclear power as a clean energy. When we talk about it, it
\nis always with discretion. Now, France is an example of the fact that nuclear power
\nworks and works very well. If we develop energy from hydropower and is brought
\nto 85 % (**) the part of nuclear, it would be the first major modern economy to
\nbe totally carbon-free. It would take a couple of additional reactors and five
\nto ten blocks to get there.
\nAt EFN, we do not ask ourselves where do we get out of nuclear power reactors
\nor how to stop it, but rather, how much should we increase the nuclear output
\nin France to address major environmental challenges of future, namely
\ncarbon-free our economy.<\/p>\n
(*) In 2014, Germany has reached 23 % of Renewables but half % from sun and
\nwind only. The variation are so high that Poland and Tchek Republic want to
\nswitch off the German grid connectivity.<\/p>\n
(**) In 2014, France has reached 96,9 % of carbon-free electricity and
\ndemonstrates that his strategy was the good one if we do not stop it without rather
\nreal solutions.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Si la visualisation pose probl\u00e8me sur le lien d’origine ici (d\u00e9cembre 2011) : http:\/\/www.enviro2b.com\/2011\/12\/06\/%C2%AB-il-faut-augmenter-la-part-du-nucleaire-en-france-%C2%BB\/ L’article est reproduit ici (and english traduction at the end of this post – et traduction en anglais \u00e0 la fin de post) Bruno Comby, ing\u00e9nieur de l\u2019Ecole Polytechinque et ing\u00e9nieur en g\u00e9nie nucl\u00e9aire de l\u2019Ecole Nationale Sup\u00e9rieure de techniques Avanc\u00e9es…<\/p>","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[118],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15970","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized-fr","category-118","description-off"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ecolo2.yazilimgemisi.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15970","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ecolo2.yazilimgemisi.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ecolo2.yazilimgemisi.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ecolo2.yazilimgemisi.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ecolo2.yazilimgemisi.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15970"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ecolo2.yazilimgemisi.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15970\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ecolo2.yazilimgemisi.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15970"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ecolo2.yazilimgemisi.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15970"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ecolo2.yazilimgemisi.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15970"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}