In post-Fukushima France the often heated debate about the future of nuclear energy has intensified. As a contribution to this debate our friends at SFEN have written a report dispelling many of the myths and much of the misinformation surrounding nuclear energy. The report articulates thirty simple messages about the essential role that nuclear energy plays in the energy mix – both in France and beyond.  French-speaking readers, as well as those with a good grasp of the language of Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau can contact SFEN (Francis Sorin) for the whole report.

In the meantime, ENS NEWS has translated two of them in order to give its readers a flavour of the report’s content, to illustrate how the nuclear debate is shaping up in France and outline some of the messages in favour of nuclear that can be articulated. And here they are (Editor-in-Chief).

Population growth and standard of living: coming to terms with the considerable increase in mankind’s energy needs

In the coming years the world will have to satisfy an ever-increasing demand for energy. Today, there are 7 billion inhabitants on planet earth. By the year 2050, there will be 9 billion of us, maybe more. So, if we want to keep pace with this growth in population and improve access to energy for the most disadvantaged of populations, we will need to ensure production of energy on a far greater scale than we do at present. Today, 4 billion people suffer from energy poverty; 1.5 billion don’t even have electricity.

All this means that even if we, the rich nations, (around 1 billion on the world’s population) manage to make spectacular energy savings - for example by halving our current level of consumption - we will still have to produce much more energy than we are today - especially electricity, which is essential for economic development.

In the emerging nations millions of people each year are benefiting from a better standard of living. The first thing that they do in response is buy themselves a refrigerator, a television, a washing machine, an iron, etc. In other words, they bring about a dramatic increase in electricity consumption. Indeed, almost all economic forecasts predict a doubling of this consumption by the year 2050. This fact provides a very persuasive argument for increasingly turning to nuclear energy. Renewable energies will have an important role to play too. But their contribution will be nowhere near sufficient, especially since some of them, like wind and solar, are intermittent sources that can only generate electricity for 25% of the time. Nuclear energy is, therefore, a significant asset when it comes to meeting the world’s rapidly increasing need for electricity.

Germany: an example that must not be followed

Since 2001, Germany has been officially committed to the early (2020) abandonment of its nuclear programme, in accordance with its so-called “phase-out” law.  In 2010, with the phase-out process barely underway, the 17 nuclear reactors in operation in Germany generated 22% of the country’s electricity. On 6 September 2010, the government of Chancellor Merkel officially decided to delay the phase-out the operation of the reactors by an average of 12 years.

On 20 March 2011, one week after the accident at Fukushima occurred, and well before any of the lessons of the accident had been properly learned, the German government decided to “temporarily” shut down 8 reactors. By May 2011, it had reversed its earlier decision and confirmed that nuclear would be abandoned by 2022 and the 8 reactors in questions would be definitively shut down.

Paradoxically, in France many people urged the country to follow the example of its neighbours on the other side of the Rhine, as if Germany had suddenly become an example to follow when it comes to environmental protection! But Germany’s environmental sensitivity is, to say the least, ambiguous. For example, it is preventing the rest of Europe from developing hybrid car engines.

Our neighbours to the East have undoubtedly invested a considerable amount of money in developing wind and photovoltaic energy sources, but the renewable energy tree hasn’t managed to hide the fossil fuel forest. In 2010, 42% of Germany’s electricity was still being produced by burning fossil fuels, more often in the form of imports from Poland or domestic supplies of lignite. This made Germany far and away the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the EU. The phasing out of nuclear will only worsen the situation.

Not only is lignite extremely polluting when burnt, it is also extracted from enormous opencast mines. To expand this production 45,000 people will have to be evacuated and 18 villages will need to be destroyed over the next fifteen years. And yet this situation is met with general indifference.

Furthermore, this hasty decision was taken without any consultation with Germany’s neighbours or partners in the EU, all of whom have already been affected by it.  The new level of CO₂ emissions in Germany will damage the chances of Europe meeting its emission reduction target of 20% by 2020.

An increase in German imports of Russian gas will increase prices for everyone, as well as our energy dependence. From being a former net exporter of electricity, Germany has now become a net importer of electricity, primarily from France, Poland and the Czech Republic. It is ironic to note that a large part of this imported electricity comes from the nuclear sector!

This phase-out will be very expensive, but German consumers as a whole already pay much more for their electricity than their French counterparts and the shock for private individuals will be attenuated. German industry, on the other hand, is already threatening to relocate its electricity-intensive activities elsewhere.

Source: The Commission for Sustainable Development, September 2011