Forget about myths!

Climate: what do the scientists say?

The international scientific community tells us that in order to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change, the increase in average global temperature must not exceed 2°C. To achieve this, global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. For industrialised countries, the main producers of greenhouse gas emissions, the proposed target is 40% by 2020! [1]

An irrelevant and inefficient technology

75% of global greenhouse gas emissions are produced by sectors of the economy which don’t rely on electricity production, or whose needs cannot be met efficiently with electricity: agriculture, forestry, manufacturing industry, transport, heating, etc... [2] The nuclear option is therefore irrelevant in those sectors!

Its ability to reduce the other 25% is extremely poor. Far from being antinuclear, the International Energy Agency continues in its irrational encouragement of ever increasing energy consumption. Yet even its own figures show that nuclear power’s contribution to a reduction in CO2 emissions would barely reach 6% and would cost at least 1,000 billion euros ... whereas energy efficiency and renewable energies could reduce emissions by 54% and 21% respectively, and cost far less! [3]

As it takes about 10 years to build one single reactor, this pointless and hypothetical reduction would only start after 2020, clearly far too late.

Nuclear power does produce greenhouse gases!

The nuclear industry produces significant amounts of greenhouse gases, linked to the lifecycle of the reactors (construction, decommissioning...) and of the fuel used (mining, transport, reprocessing...). And crucially, unlike other technologies, the by-product heat from electricity generated by nuclear reactors cannot be harnessed. Energy needs for heating therefore require further energy production. Combined heat and power generation produces 7 times less greenhouse gas emissions than a system relying on nuclear power! [4]

The nuclear industry: expensive... and counterproductive!

For each euro invested, increased energy efficiency and certain types of renewable energies can achieve up to 11 times more reductions in greenhouse gas emissions than nuclear power. [5] Yet nuclear technology is an investment blackhole. And as such, it is a hindrance to the rapid and large-scale development of the real solutions for climate change.

The nuclear power industry requires substantial investments for its infrastructure and monopolises enormous public subsidies, including two thirds of the European budget for energy research. [6] Since 1974, the OECD countries have officially committed 55% of their energy research budgets to nuclear energy, i.e. 250 billion dollars. [7] The future costs of decommissioning nuclear power plants and managing radioactive waste will reach hundreds of billions of euros.

Power plants at risk from climate change

The hotter the weather, the more unsafe it is to operate nuclear reactors: 1/4 of French nuclear reactors had to be shut down in 2003 because of the summer heat wave! Moreover, the production of nuclear energy requires 25,000 times more water per kWh than wind or solar energy. [8] Extreme weather events (storms, floods) are becoming more frequent, and increase the risk of accidents. For example, in 1999, the French nuclear power plant at the Blayais site, near Bordeaux, came close to disaster because of flooding, and the city was nearly evacuated. [9] After being flooded by the tsunami on 26th December 2004, there was an emergency shutdown of the Kalpakkam nuclear reactor in India. It has been reported that 15,000 families were evacuated the following day as a precaution. Worrying levels of radioactivity were measured two months later up to 20 km away. [10]

A polluting and dangerous industry

During routine operations, the nuclear industry is responsible for both water and soil pollution, particularly during the uranium mining process. It is constantly releasing radioactive substances into the environment. A study by German scientists has shown that there is a 117% increase in childhood leukaemia within a 5 km radius of some nuclear reactors. [11] The highly official International Commission on Radiological Protection itself states that “both high and low doses may cause cancers and hereditary disorders”. [12] A major accident, always within the realms of possibility, would contaminate vast areas for thousands of years, and there is no solution for the management of nuclear waste. Finally, the increase in the number of nuclear reactors encourages the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

More jobs created with alternative energies

In less than 10 years, Germany has created nearly 300,000 jobs in the renewable energy sector. [13] This emerging sector was already employing at least 2.3 million people across the world in 2008. The industrialised countries are not the only beneficiaries; other countries are developing some of the most progressive solar energy programmes in the world. For example, during the last few years, 100,000 roofs have been equipped with photovoltaic panels in Bangladesh, and this industry could create 100,000 jobs in the country by 2015. [14] For the same investment, energy efficiency and renewable energies create 15 times more jobs than the nuclear industry! [15]

We have the solutions, let’s apply them!

A large number of relevant measures must be implemented within energy policies (energy efficiency, energy saving, increase in renewable energies), as well as in other policies: fighting deforestation, transition towards sustainable farming, economic relocalisation... The reduction in methane production, a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential 49 times worse than that of CO2, must also be included. Methane capture in French waste dumps would reduce greenhouse gas emissions far more than building 3 EPR nuclear reactors! [16]

Many studies [17] have shown that the already available energy alternatives would enable effective action against climate change and make it possible to dispense with nuclear energy... which only supplies 2.4% of global energy consumption! [18]