Si la visualisation pose problème sur le lien d'origine ici (décembre 2011) :
L'article est reproduit ici
(and english traduction at the end of this post -
et traduction en anglais à la fin de post)
(and english traduction at the end of this post -
et traduction en anglais à la fin de post)
Bruno Comby, ingénieur de
l’Ecole Polytechinque et ingénieur en génie nucléaire de l’Ecole Nationale
Supérieure de techniques Avancées de Paris. Il est le Fondateur de
l’Association des Ecologistes Pour le Nucléaire (AEPN). Alors que la France se
pose la question de la sortie du nucléaire, Bruno Comby avance l’idée d’une
augmentation de la part du nucléaire.
Vous vous présentez comme un écologiste
partisan du nucléaire, est-ce bien compatible ?
Bien sur ! L’AEPN , l’association que j’ai créé
et qui regroupe aujourd’hui 10.000 membres et signataires dans 60 pays est
attachée au nucléaire, il n’y a aucun message caché ! Au contraire, c’est
explicite : nous sommes des écologistes pro-nucléaire, et il y en a
beaucoup !
Nous sommes des écologistes, donc nous sommes
favorables à la protection de l’environnement, à une exploitation sure, propre
et respectueuse de notre planète. Or, nous ne sommes pas dogmatiquement
anti-nucléaire comme peuvent l’être d’autres groupes écologistes. Nous pensons
qu’il faut avoir une attitude ouverte face au progrès scientifique, l’accepter
lorsqu’il est utile et le rejeter lorsqu’il est nuisible.
S’agissant plus précisément du nucléaire, nous pensons
que le nucléaire militaire n’est pas bon pour l’avenir de l’humanité. En
revanche le nucléaire civil, sous réserve qu’il soit propre et respectueux de
l’environnement apporte une contribution utile. Nous nous opposons donc à
l’attitude dogmatique des écologistes anti-nucléaire qui ne veulent rien savoir
alors qu’il n’y a pas que des inconvénients au nucléaire, il y a également de
grands avantages.
Justement, quels sont les avantages du
nucléaire ?
Du point de vue de la protection de l’environnement,
la grande différence du nucléaire par rapport aux énergies dominantes qui sont
utilisées aujourd’hui, à savoir, gaz , pétrole et charbon, c’est ce que
j’appelle le ‘facteur un million’ : 1 g d’uranium produit aujourd’hui
autant d’énergie qu’1 tonne de pétrole. Un gramme pour une tonne, c’est donc un
rapport d’un million.
Sur le plan environnemental, cela signifie que la
cicatrice que nous allons infliger à la planète est un million de fois plus
faible. Avec ce facteur un million, on commence donc à se rapprocher d’une
industrie qui ne manipule pas grand-chose.
A l’autre bout de la chaine, il reste bien évidemment
des résidus transformés de la matière première. Mais on se situe alors sur la
même échelle. Comme on avait un million de fois moins de matière, on a aussi un
million de fois moins de déchets. Ce n’est pas une industrie ‘zéro déchet’,
mais quasiment.
Même si le nucléaire produit moins de
déchets qu’une autre source d’énergie, ces déchets sont toutefois plus
dangereux du fait de leur radioactivité ?
Votre question traduit bien l’attitude dogmatique dans
laquelle on est enserré lorsque l’on évoque les déchets nucléaires. On parle de
la question des déchets comme s’il n’y avait pas de solution. On utilise même
le plus souvent le terme de ‘problème des déchets’ alors que non seulement il
existe une solution aux déchets nucléaires, mais il en existe plusieurs.
Tout d’abord on peut retraiter ces déchets nucléaires,
et ce n’est pas un plan sur la comète d’un savant fou ! C’est une chose
que se fait déjà de manière quotidienne, industrielle, parfaitement sure et
propre. Il se trouve que la France est en pointe dans ce domaine, et l’objet
même de l’usine de La Hague est le recyclage et le retraitement des matières
nucléaires.
Lorsque l’on sort le combustible usé du réacteur, il
contient encore 96% d’uranium imbrulé, 1% de plutonium et 3% d’un cocktail de
substances diverses dont on ne connait pas encore d’utilisation possible. Au
lieu de faire comme les Américains ou les Finlandais, et mettre à la poubelle l’ensemble
de ces déchets, c’est un concept hautement écologique que de retraiter et
recycler les déchets pour séparer la partie réutilisable, à savoir les 96%
d’uranium et le 1% de plutonium. Il ne reste donc que 3%. On a donc divisé par
trente la quantité de déchets, sachant qu’il y en avait déjà un million de fois
moins que les énergies concurrentes.
Ces déchets ne sont par ailleurs pas rejetés ou
introduits dans les écosystèmes, ce qui pourrait avoir des effets malheureux.
Ils sont soigneusement isolés des écosystèmes et confinés avec un nouvel
avantage : par définition, ils sont auto-biodégradables. Ils se
décomposent spontanément avec le temps.
Mais cela prend beaucoup, beaucoup de
temps ?
Il y a deux sortes de déchets : ceux qui se
décomposent rapidement et ceux qui le font lentement. S’agissant de ceux qui se
décomposent vite, ce n’est pas un problème puisqu’ils ne sont rapidement plus
là. Maintenant, pour ceux qui durent plus longtemps, comme l’uranium dont la
durée de vie est de 750 millions d’années pour l’uranium 235 et trois milliards
d’années pour le 238, il n’est quasiment pas radioactif. Il émet en effet très
peu et il n’est donc pas dangereux. On se situe dans des ordres de grandeur de
radioactivité naturelle, qui n’est pas dangereuse.
Le ‘problème des déchets’ n’est donc pas du tout un
problème. En revanche, certaines organisations anti-nucléaire font un peu le
mélange entre les deux catégories. Les déchets sont fortement radioactifs
lorsque le combustible sort de la centrale, c’est vrai. Mais, ceux qui durent
ne sont pas fortement radioactifs. On nous dit que les déchets sont extrêmement
radioactifs et durent très longtemps mais cela est faux. La radioactivité
décroit de manière exponentielle. Il n’y a donc qu’au début que cela représente
un danger.
On a évoqué le début du cycle, la fin,
et au milieu ?
Le nucléaire présente l’énorme avantage de ne pas
rejeter de CO2, et ne contribue donc pas au réchauffement climatique.
Vous prônez une « nouvelle
écologie », de quoi s’agit-il ?
Il existe une vieille vision de l’écologie, maintenant
un peu dépassée, qui consiste à s’opposer de manière systématique à tout de
manière générale et au nucléaire en particulier, symbole de la contestation
permanente. Or, il existe désormais une nouvelle écologie, que je qualifie
d’écologie intelligente, raisonnée et raisonnable, qui étudie le problème au
lieu de faire des jugements lapidaires sans connaitre le sujet.
Dans cette écologie, on retrouve de très grands noms
de l’écologie « historique ». Un des co-fondateurs de Greenpeace en 1971, Patrick Moore, fait partie de notre
association, AEPN. Il était directeur international de l’organisation
écologiste pendant une dizaine d’années, puis était président-fondateur de
Greenpeace Canada pendant 16 ans. On ne peut donc pas le taxer de ne pas
présenter de CV écologique ! Il a quitté Greenpeace après un désaccord
fondamental, notamment sur la question du nucléaire. Il considère que
Greenpeace se trompe sur ce sujet-là.
Nous comptons également parmi nous James Lovelock, le
père de la théorie de Gaïa, qui définit la Terre comme un être vivant capable
de se réguler afin de maintenir à sa surface les conditions idéales pour la
vie, et qui représente le ciment idéologique du mouvement écologique né dans
les années 60 et 70.
L’écologie occupe aujourd’hui le devant
de la scène politique, comment vous positionnez-vous par rapport aux Verts ?
On se demande ce que l’écologie vient faire en
politique. L’écologie, c’est avant tout une science. Peut-on imaginer un parti
des mathématiques ? Ou un mouvement des républicains favorables à la
physique ? L’écologie n’est ni de gauche, ni de droite, c’est une science
qui mérite d’être étudiée dans les universités et qui n’a rien à faire en
politique. C’est une anomalie qui j’espère sera corrigée. Pour notre part, nous
pratiquons une écologie scientifique, où la politique n’a pas sa place. A
l’AEPN, nous veillons soigneusement à ne pas être récupérés par qui que ce
soit.
Quel avenir pour un mouvement comme le
votre ?
Nous représentons la nouvelle tendance écologiste qui
monte. Nous comptons de plus en plus de membres. Mais ce qui est difficile,
c’est justement de prévoir l’avenir. Est-ce que l’on va se politiser, j’en
doute, ce serait contraire à tout ce que l’on a fait jusqu’à maintenant. Alors,
les partis d’écologie déjà politisés, pour l’instant strictement
anti-nucléaire, vont-ils se prendre une grosse claque politique et comprendre
ensuite qu’ils ont été trop loin et accepter le nucléaire ? Ce serait plutôt
une bonne nouvelle.
Je pense que s’ils continuent de s’enfermer dans leur
attitude dogmatique, complètement déconnectée de la réalité, ils vont finir par
disparaitre. Ce seront d’ailleurs peut-être les électeurs qui vont régler le
problème. Quand tout le monde se rendra compte que certains écologistes ne sont
que des extrémistes incompétents, ils disparaitront alors de la scène.
Une des grandes questions qui inquiètent
les électeurs est celle du coût d’une sortie du nucléaire…
Si l’on compare les tarifs de l’électricité en France
et en Allemagne, puisque beaucoup d’écologistes nous présentent l’Allemagne
comme le pays à suivre, le citoyen français paie son électricité 12 centimes le
KW/h et émet dans l’atmosphère environ 6 tonnes de carbone par an. Un Allemand
paie de son côté 23,6 centimes le KW/h, soit quasiment le double, et émet dans
l’atmosphère pus de 10 tonnes par an de CO2. Alors il est vrai qu’ils ont
beaucoup plus d’éoliennes que nous, mais ce ‘beaucoup’ représente un très
faible pourcentage dans la production électrique finale. Et comme cela coute
extrêmement cher à installer, ils complètent avec quelque chose de vite fait et
pas cher, le charbon.
Au final, les Allemands se retrouvent avec 10%
d’électricité d’origine renouvelable, et le reste est assuré par le charbon ou
les exportations de gaz. Ils fonctionnent donc avec 10% de propre et 90% de
sale, et nous, nous faisons l’inverse. Il faudrait donc que les Allemands se
dépêchent d’imiter le modèle français.
Dans les discussions auxquelles on assiste
actuellement en vue de 2012, on retrouve toujours la même question, très
incomplète, qui est de savoir de combien il faut réduire la part du nucléaire
en France. Suivant les opinions des uns et des autres, on en sort complètement,
on s’arrête à 50% ou on maintient ce que l’on a actuellement.
Vous voulez augmenter la part du
nucléaire en France ?
Cette question n’est jamais posée, est-ce qu’on ne
pourrait pas penser à augmenter la part du nucléaire en France ? En effet,
en même temps que l’on se pose toutes ces questions, arrivent en force les
voitures électriques, qui présentent un avenir intéressant d’un point de vue
écologique, notamment dans le cadre de la lutte contre le CO2. Cela demandera
donc plus d’électricité, et donc plus de nucléaire, énergie totalement
décarbonnée.
Pour conclure, je dirai que le phénomène que l’on
rencontre en France est le même dans le monde entier. Il existe une espèce de
dictature intellectuelle qui fait que l’on n’a pas le droit de parler du
nucléaire comme d’une énergie propre. Quand on en parle c’est toujours du bout
des lèvres. Or, la France est l’exemple type du fait que le nucléaire
fonctionne et fonctionne même très bien. Si l’on développe l’énergie d’origine
hydraulique et que l’on porte à 85% la part du nucléaire, on serait alors la
première grande économie moderne à être totalement décarbonnée. Il suffirait
d’une quinzaine de réacteurs supplémentaires et de cinq à dix barrages pour y
parvenir.
A l’AEPN, nous ne nous demandons pas quand devons-nous
sortir du nucléaire, ni combien de réacteurs faut-il arrêter, mais plutôt, de combien
faut-il augmenter la production nucléaire en France pour faire face aux grands
enjeux écologiques de l’avenir, à savoir décarbonner notre économie.
Fin
_______________________________
In english :
Nuclear power has the enormous advantage of not rejecting CO2 and does not contribute to global warming.
You advocate a "new ecology", what is it?
There is an old vision of ecology, now a bit outdated, which consists in being systematically against everything in general and especially nuclear, symbol of the ongoing dispute. However, there is now a new ecology, which I call smart ecology, reasoned and reasonable, which studies the problem instead of lapidary judgments without knowing the subject.
In this ecology, there are very big names of the "historical" ecology A co-founder of Greenpeace in 1971, Patrick Moore, is part of our association, EFN. He was director of the International Environmental Organization for ten years and was the founding president of Greenpeace Canada for 16 years. We can not accuse him not to present ecological resumé! He left Greenpeace after a fundamental disagreement, especially on the nuclear issue. It considers that Greenpeace is wrong on that subject.
We also have with us James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, which defines the Earth as a living being, able to regulate itself in order to maintain in its surface the ideal conditions for life, and represents the ideological cement of the environmental movement born in the 60s and 70s.
Ecology today occupies the front of the political scene, what is your position in relation to the Greens?
We can wonder what the ecology comes to politics. Above all, ecology is a science. Can you imagine a Mathematics party? Or a movement of Republicans favorable to Physics? Ecology is neither left nor right, it is a science that deserves to be studied in universities and has nothing to do with politics. It is an anomaly that I hope will be corrected. For our part, we practice a scientific ecology, where politics has no place. At EFN, we carefully take care not to be picked up by anyone.
What is the future of a movement like yours?
We represent the new green trend rising. We are more and more numerous. But the most difficult is to predict the future with precision. Are we going to politicize, I doubt it, for it would be detrimental to everything we have done so far. Then, the Ecology parties already politicized, for now strictly anti-nuclear, are they going to be given a big political slap and then understand that they have gone too far and to accept nuclear power? It would be quite good news,
I think if they continue to shut themselves up in their dogmatic attitude, completely out of touch with reality, they will eventually disappear. Or perhaps the voters will resolve the issue. When everyone will realize that some environmentalists are just incompetent extremists, they will be bound to disappear.
One of the major questions which worry to voters is the cost of a nuclear exit ...
Comparing electricity tariffs in France and Germany, since many environmentalists present Germany as the country to follow, French citizens pay for electricity 12 cents per kW/h and emit in the atmosphere about 6 tons of carbon per year. Meanwhile, a German payroll is 23.6 cents kW/h, almost double, and emits pus in the atmosphere of 10 tons of CO2. Thus, it is true that they have much more wind than us, but that 'many' is a very small percentage in the final electricity production. And as it is extremely expensive to install, they supplement with something quick and cheap, coal.
In the end, the Germans are left with 10 % of renewable electricity, and the rest is provided by coal or gas exports. So they work with 10 % (*) and 90 % of own dirty, and we'll do the opposite. So the Germans should rush to imitate the French model.
In the discussions which we are currently seeing for 2012, we always find the same question, very incomplete, which is knowing how much to reduce the share of nuclear power in France. According to the opinions of each other, it comes out completely, it stops 50 % or maintained what is currently.
You want to increase the part of nuclear power in France?
This question is never asked. Should we think about increasing the part of nuclear power in France? Indeed, while we are asking all these questions, arrive in force electric cars, which have an interesting future from an ecological point of view, particularly in the context of the fight against CO2. This will therefore requires more electricity, and therefore more nuclear power, a totally carbon-free energy.
To conclude, I will say that the phenomenon encountered in France is the same worldwide. There is a kind of intellectual dictatorship fact that one has no right to talk about nuclear power as a clean energy. When we talk about it, it is always with discretion. Now, France is an example of the fact that nuclear power works and works very well. If we develop energy from hydropower and is brought to 85 % (**) the part of nuclear, it would be the first major modern economy to be totally carbon-free. It would take a couple of additional reactors and five to ten blocks to get there.
At EFN, we do not ask ourselves where do we get out of nuclear power reactors or how to stop it, but rather, how much should we increase the nuclear output in France to address major environmental challenges of future, namely carbon-free our economy.
(*) In 2014, Germany has reached 23 % of Renewables but half % from sun and wind only. The variation are so high that Poland and Tchek Republic want to switch off the German grid connectivity.
(**) In 2014, France has reached 96,9 % of carbon-free electricity and demonstrates that his strategy was the good one if we do not stop it without rather real solutions.
In english :
"We need to increase nuclear power in
France"
Bruno Comby, was graduated from Polytechnique School in engineering and is a nuclear engineer from the National School of Technical Progress of Paris. He is the Founder of the Environmentalists For Nuclear Association (EFN www.ecolo.org). Whereas the question of the exit from nuclear power is raised in France, Bruno Comby brings the idea of increasing the part of nuclear power.
You present yourself as an environmentalist supporter of nuclear power, is it compatible?
Of course! EFN, the association that I created and which now includes 10,000 members and signatories in 60 countries is attached to nuclear power, there is no hidden message! Rather, it is explicit: we are pro-nuclear environmentalists, and there are many of us!
We are environmentalists, so we support the protection of the environment and a safe clean and respectful use of our planet resources. But we are not dogmatically anti-nuclear as other environmental groups can be. We think we have an open attitude to scientific progress, accept it when it is useful and reject it when it is detrimental.
With specific nuclear, we believe that the nuclear weapons are not good for the future of humanity. However the civil nuclear, provided it is clean and environmentally friendly makes a useful contribution. That is why we are opposed to the dogmatic attitude of anti-nuclear environmentalists who remain stubborn whereas there are not just disadvantages to nuclear power, there are also great benefits.
Exactly, what are the advantages of nuclear power?
As far as environmental protection is concerned, the big difference between nuclear power and the most dominant energies that are used today, namely gas, oil and coal, is what I call 'a factor million ': 1 gram of uranium now produces as much energy as 1 ton of oil. One gram per ton, this is a report of one million.
In environmental terms, it means that the burden that we will affect the planet is a million times lower. With this factor one million, we start to use an industry that has a small impact.
Bruno Comby, was graduated from Polytechnique School in engineering and is a nuclear engineer from the National School of Technical Progress of Paris. He is the Founder of the Environmentalists For Nuclear Association (EFN www.ecolo.org). Whereas the question of the exit from nuclear power is raised in France, Bruno Comby brings the idea of increasing the part of nuclear power.
You present yourself as an environmentalist supporter of nuclear power, is it compatible?
Of course! EFN, the association that I created and which now includes 10,000 members and signatories in 60 countries is attached to nuclear power, there is no hidden message! Rather, it is explicit: we are pro-nuclear environmentalists, and there are many of us!
We are environmentalists, so we support the protection of the environment and a safe clean and respectful use of our planet resources. But we are not dogmatically anti-nuclear as other environmental groups can be. We think we have an open attitude to scientific progress, accept it when it is useful and reject it when it is detrimental.
With specific nuclear, we believe that the nuclear weapons are not good for the future of humanity. However the civil nuclear, provided it is clean and environmentally friendly makes a useful contribution. That is why we are opposed to the dogmatic attitude of anti-nuclear environmentalists who remain stubborn whereas there are not just disadvantages to nuclear power, there are also great benefits.
Exactly, what are the advantages of nuclear power?
As far as environmental protection is concerned, the big difference between nuclear power and the most dominant energies that are used today, namely gas, oil and coal, is what I call 'a factor million ': 1 gram of uranium now produces as much energy as 1 ton of oil. One gram per ton, this is a report of one million.
In environmental terms, it means that the burden that we will affect the planet is a million times lower. With this factor one million, we start to use an industry that has a small impact.
At the other end of the chain, it obviously remains
residues of processed raw material. But it is then located on the same scale.
As we had a million times less material, it also has a million times less
waste. This is not an industry 'zero waste', but almost.
Although nuclear power produces less waste than the other sources of energy, is this waste more dangerous because of its radioactivity?
Your question reflects the dogmatic attitude in which we are enclosed when talking about nuclear waste. We talk about the waste issue as if there was no solution. We often use the term 'waste problem'. And yet, not only is there a solution to nuclear waste, but there are several.
Firstly nuclear waste can be reprocessed, and it is not the pipe dreams of a mad scientist! This is something that is done on a daily basis, industrial, perfectly safe and clean. It is that France is a leader in this field, and the very purpose of the La Hague plant is recycling and reprocessing the nuclear materials.
When you take the used fuel out of the reactor, it still contains 96 % unburned uranium, 1 % plutonium and 3 % of a cocktail of different substances which we do not know any possible use yet. Instead of doing like the Americans or Finns, and throw out all this waste, it is a highly ecological concept to reprocess and recycle it by separating the reusable part, ie 96 % of uranium and 1 % plutonium. Only 3 % remains. So we divided by thirty the amount of waste, knowing that there were already a million times less energy than the other energies..
This waste is not otherwise rejected or introduced into ecosystems, which could have unfortunate effects. They are carefully isolated and confined ecosystem with a new benefit: by definition, they are self-biodegradable. They decompose spontaneously with time.
But it takes a long, long time?
There are two kinds of waste: those that break down quickly and those who do it slowly. As for those who break down quickly, it is not a problem since they are quickly gone. Now for those that last longer, such as uranium whose life is 750 million years for uranium-235 and three billion years for the 238, it is hardly radioactive. Indeed it emits very little and it is not dangerous. It is in orders of magnitude of natural radioactivity, which is not dangerous.
The 'waste problem' is not a problem at all. However, some anti-nuclear organizations get the two categories mixed up. The waste is highly radioactive when the fuel leaves the plant, it's true. But those that last are not always highly radioactive. We are told that the waste is highly radioactive and last a very long time but it is wrong. Radioactivity decreases exponentially. The danger is only at the beginning.
Although nuclear power produces less waste than the other sources of energy, is this waste more dangerous because of its radioactivity?
Your question reflects the dogmatic attitude in which we are enclosed when talking about nuclear waste. We talk about the waste issue as if there was no solution. We often use the term 'waste problem'. And yet, not only is there a solution to nuclear waste, but there are several.
Firstly nuclear waste can be reprocessed, and it is not the pipe dreams of a mad scientist! This is something that is done on a daily basis, industrial, perfectly safe and clean. It is that France is a leader in this field, and the very purpose of the La Hague plant is recycling and reprocessing the nuclear materials.
When you take the used fuel out of the reactor, it still contains 96 % unburned uranium, 1 % plutonium and 3 % of a cocktail of different substances which we do not know any possible use yet. Instead of doing like the Americans or Finns, and throw out all this waste, it is a highly ecological concept to reprocess and recycle it by separating the reusable part, ie 96 % of uranium and 1 % plutonium. Only 3 % remains. So we divided by thirty the amount of waste, knowing that there were already a million times less energy than the other energies..
This waste is not otherwise rejected or introduced into ecosystems, which could have unfortunate effects. They are carefully isolated and confined ecosystem with a new benefit: by definition, they are self-biodegradable. They decompose spontaneously with time.
But it takes a long, long time?
There are two kinds of waste: those that break down quickly and those who do it slowly. As for those who break down quickly, it is not a problem since they are quickly gone. Now for those that last longer, such as uranium whose life is 750 million years for uranium-235 and three billion years for the 238, it is hardly radioactive. Indeed it emits very little and it is not dangerous. It is in orders of magnitude of natural radioactivity, which is not dangerous.
The 'waste problem' is not a problem at all. However, some anti-nuclear organizations get the two categories mixed up. The waste is highly radioactive when the fuel leaves the plant, it's true. But those that last are not always highly radioactive. We are told that the waste is highly radioactive and last a very long time but it is wrong. Radioactivity decreases exponentially. The danger is only at the beginning.
We
have talked about the beginning of the cycle, the end and the middle?
Nuclear power has the enormous advantage of not rejecting CO2 and does not contribute to global warming.
You advocate a "new ecology", what is it?
There is an old vision of ecology, now a bit outdated, which consists in being systematically against everything in general and especially nuclear, symbol of the ongoing dispute. However, there is now a new ecology, which I call smart ecology, reasoned and reasonable, which studies the problem instead of lapidary judgments without knowing the subject.
In this ecology, there are very big names of the "historical" ecology A co-founder of Greenpeace in 1971, Patrick Moore, is part of our association, EFN. He was director of the International Environmental Organization for ten years and was the founding president of Greenpeace Canada for 16 years. We can not accuse him not to present ecological resumé! He left Greenpeace after a fundamental disagreement, especially on the nuclear issue. It considers that Greenpeace is wrong on that subject.
We also have with us James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, which defines the Earth as a living being, able to regulate itself in order to maintain in its surface the ideal conditions for life, and represents the ideological cement of the environmental movement born in the 60s and 70s.
Ecology today occupies the front of the political scene, what is your position in relation to the Greens?
We can wonder what the ecology comes to politics. Above all, ecology is a science. Can you imagine a Mathematics party? Or a movement of Republicans favorable to Physics? Ecology is neither left nor right, it is a science that deserves to be studied in universities and has nothing to do with politics. It is an anomaly that I hope will be corrected. For our part, we practice a scientific ecology, where politics has no place. At EFN, we carefully take care not to be picked up by anyone.
What is the future of a movement like yours?
We represent the new green trend rising. We are more and more numerous. But the most difficult is to predict the future with precision. Are we going to politicize, I doubt it, for it would be detrimental to everything we have done so far. Then, the Ecology parties already politicized, for now strictly anti-nuclear, are they going to be given a big political slap and then understand that they have gone too far and to accept nuclear power? It would be quite good news,
I think if they continue to shut themselves up in their dogmatic attitude, completely out of touch with reality, they will eventually disappear. Or perhaps the voters will resolve the issue. When everyone will realize that some environmentalists are just incompetent extremists, they will be bound to disappear.
One of the major questions which worry to voters is the cost of a nuclear exit ...
Comparing electricity tariffs in France and Germany, since many environmentalists present Germany as the country to follow, French citizens pay for electricity 12 cents per kW/h and emit in the atmosphere about 6 tons of carbon per year. Meanwhile, a German payroll is 23.6 cents kW/h, almost double, and emits pus in the atmosphere of 10 tons of CO2. Thus, it is true that they have much more wind than us, but that 'many' is a very small percentage in the final electricity production. And as it is extremely expensive to install, they supplement with something quick and cheap, coal.
In the end, the Germans are left with 10 % of renewable electricity, and the rest is provided by coal or gas exports. So they work with 10 % (*) and 90 % of own dirty, and we'll do the opposite. So the Germans should rush to imitate the French model.
In the discussions which we are currently seeing for 2012, we always find the same question, very incomplete, which is knowing how much to reduce the share of nuclear power in France. According to the opinions of each other, it comes out completely, it stops 50 % or maintained what is currently.
You want to increase the part of nuclear power in France?
This question is never asked. Should we think about increasing the part of nuclear power in France? Indeed, while we are asking all these questions, arrive in force electric cars, which have an interesting future from an ecological point of view, particularly in the context of the fight against CO2. This will therefore requires more electricity, and therefore more nuclear power, a totally carbon-free energy.
To conclude, I will say that the phenomenon encountered in France is the same worldwide. There is a kind of intellectual dictatorship fact that one has no right to talk about nuclear power as a clean energy. When we talk about it, it is always with discretion. Now, France is an example of the fact that nuclear power works and works very well. If we develop energy from hydropower and is brought to 85 % (**) the part of nuclear, it would be the first major modern economy to be totally carbon-free. It would take a couple of additional reactors and five to ten blocks to get there.
At EFN, we do not ask ourselves where do we get out of nuclear power reactors or how to stop it, but rather, how much should we increase the nuclear output in France to address major environmental challenges of future, namely carbon-free our economy.
(*) In 2014, Germany has reached 23 % of Renewables but half % from sun and wind only. The variation are so high that Poland and Tchek Republic want to switch off the German grid connectivity.
(**) In 2014, France has reached 96,9 % of carbon-free electricity and demonstrates that his strategy was the good one if we do not stop it without rather real solutions.