We, the Voices of Nuclear, are a collective of citizens who support generating electricity with nuclear power because of the major ecological, economic and societal benefits associated with it, through the promotion of facts.

It is a difficult exercise. We know nuclear energy is controversial.

We undertake it out of a sense of responsibility, towards the planet as well as towards present and future  generations who are faced with a double threat: restriction of access to energy, even though sufficient  energy is indispensable to human well‐being; and climate change, the effects of which are already having a  severe impact on our civilization and its stability.  

Nuclear energy, emitting very low quantities of greenhouse gas, is an essential part of the solution to  climate change and the transition to a sustainable society. As such it would be unfair to deny it to future  generations due to fears whose foundations do not withstand scrutiny. The myths created and maintained  around nuclear energy still prevent too much of mankind from resorting to it.  

We join the many citizen movements that are currently mobilizing to change rules and mentalities in the name of the scientists’ climate alert. We insist that the terms of this alert should not be censored and that  the scientists’ words should be heard by all, whether or not they correspond to one’s personal beliefs.  

It is necessary, and legitimate, that close attention be paid to all technologies and to the consequences of their industrial implementation. But this attention must be based on the facts if we want to avoid making  mistakes about where the real threats lie.  

The a priori rejection of nuclear energy is unfounded. It is particularly damaging for three reasons:  

  • It prevents the full deployment of nuclear energy, where it is relevant, to the benefit of public good ‐  whereas the IPCC stresses the need to increase the global nuclear fleet to fight climate change and the  United Nations recalls the vital importance of improving access to energy for one‐third of the world’s  population.  
  • It diverts considerable public and private resources, as well as the efforts people individually shoulder,  from areas where they would immediately result in effective decarbonization. France has already spent  more than 150 billion euros, supposedly to decarbonize an electricity sector that is already low‐carbon,  while knowingly neglecting all other sectors. This a priori rejection also embarrasses decision‐makers  who, despite the known facts and need for urgent action, cannot find it in themselves to disavow the  positions against nuclear power they so loudly voiced.
  • It opens the door to organizations that nurture mistrust of science and deny or ignore the facts.  Adopting the errors of ideology, they end up going against the goals of environmental protection, social  justice and progress that they often claim to achieve.

 We share here some little‐known realities, representative of the misunderstanding that surrounds  nuclear energy. We call on those who want scientific reality and the preeminence of facts to be recognized  to join us in restoring them, so that citizens can debate, and decide, with a clear understanding of their  options.  

10 little‐known realities

 About the use of nuclear energy to produce electricity

1. Of all industrial and household waste, radioactive waste causes the least concern to French health and environmental authorities

… because  of  their  limited  volume  as  well  as  the comprehensive way they are managed in space and in time. While there is no method today to  completely eliminate what is known as final waste – dangerous but very compact (one thimbleful  per French person per year), it has the advantage of being under complete control. That is very  rarely  the  case  for  any  other  category  of  waste.  Today,  all  kinds  of pollution,  including  anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, are, in fact, uncontrolled wastes from human activity.  

Sources :

2. Nuclear energy is inevitable in the fight against climate change

Nuclear energy is inevitable in the fight against climate change. The six European countries with  the lowest carbon energy, including France (3rd lowest), enjoy that status thanks to hydro‐ and  nuclear  power  which produce  very  little  greenhouse  gas.  In  fact,  the  scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) advocate multiplying the global nuclear fleet by  a factor of 2 to 6 in the scenarios able to stabilize the climate.    

Sources :

3. In France, the price of electricity is one of the cheapest and most stable in Europe thanks to its nuclear fleet. France will lose this advantage if it does not renew the nuclear fleet

The very low  generating costs of nuclear energy in France represent only a third of the final price of electricity,  the rest being network costs and taxes, half of which subsidize renewable energies. The cost of building a fleet of new EPR nuclear power plants to replace existing reactors would add only a few cents per kilowatt-hour. In France, nuclear power is, moreover, the only energy whose price includes the full and final cost of waste management and decommissioning.

Sources : 

 

4. The Fessenheim nuclear power plant is being shut down not for safety or economic reasons, but solely for political reasons, imposed by a small number of politicians, without public consultation

The decree closing Fessenheim was promulgated in the final days of the mandate of former  Environment Minister Ségolène Royal. In October 2018 the chairman of the Nuclear Safety Authority  declared that “Fessenheim is the [EDF] power station with the best results in terms of safety.”  Because  the  closure  is  being  imposed  politically,  Fessenheim  shareholders  will  receive  compensation that could amount to several billion euros and local authorities will receive several  million euros, all from the national budget. This profitable site today provides employment to more  than 5,000 people, half of them directly, and generates millions of euros in revenue for the  companies and workers around the site who depend on it economically.    

Sources :

 

5. Radioactive releases due to the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant will cause no death or illness in people whatever their level of exposition, either now or in the future

The 18,500  dead and missing persons attributed to “Fukushima” are the result of the huge earthquake (4th  largest in recorded history) and tsunami that hit Japan on March 11, 2011.  According to the  definitive conclusions of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation  (UNSCEAR), the radioactivity released from the Fukushima power station accident has not had, and  will not have, health consequences for workers or the general population. In fact, it is widely  acknowledged that evacuation undertaken after the accident was unwarranted on such a scale. The  evacuation itself led to more health damage to evacuees than did the nuclear accident. The low  environmental and health impact of the nuclear accident – despite its severity – also led several  environmental activists to take a stance in favor of nuclear energy, some of them even reversing  their previous opposition.

Sources :

 

6. In the short and medium term, it is technically impossible for wind, solar and bio‐energies to replace nuclear energy and fossil fuels, no matter how much money and effort are invested

Solar  and wind power cannot substitute for nuclear energy without the complementary use of fossil fuels,  unless one assumes a very high probability of prolonged blackouts for which our western societies  are not technically and psychologically prepared. There is indeed no technology available today or  in the foreseeable future permitting the massive storage of electricity except the use of many  additional dams.    

Sources :

7. Compared to other energies used in France, particularly renewables and fossil fuels, nuclear energy has the least impact on biodiversity

Sixty‐five of the world’s leading experts in conservation  biology took a stand in 2014 to explain that of all types of energy production, nuclear energy is the  most respectful of biodiversity. This advantage stems in particular from the facts that nuclear energy  is so dense that, per kilowatt‐hour produced, it requires very little space, water, air or natural  resources, that the waste it generates is recovered and managed, and that it does not cause  atmospheric or aquatic pollution.    

Sources :

 

8. Radioactive discharges from French nuclear power plants are harmless because they are negligible compared to natural background radiation levels.

Radioactivity is a natural physical phenomenon to which  any living body is exposed, just as to oxygen or carbon in the air. The French population is exposed,  on average, to 4.5 millisievert (mSv) per year of radioactivity (of natural and medical origin). Nuclear  facilities add only +0.01 mSv, a negligible increase. More generally, the risks associated with the  production of nuclear electricity are considered much lower than those from other forms of energy,  including in the event of an accident. The atmospheric pollution in France due to the use of fossil  fuels (gas, oil, coal) causes, for example, more than 1,400 deaths per year.    

Sources :

9. The 75% share of nuclear power in France’s electricity mix is an essential factor contributing to its high level of energy independence and helps protect it from global political and economic disruptions.

France has full control of its nuclear energy, from science and academia through the  complete industry sector, so it depends only on itself. 95% of the industry’s value is localized in  France and could hardly be outsourced, including all of its strategic inputs. The same is true of  hydropower but not of fossil, wind or solar energy.    

Sources :

10. The French nuclear fleet truly acts as “the lungs of Europe”.

In 2018, France was Europe’s largest  net exporter of electricity. Thanks to its 71.7% share of nuclear power and 12.4% share of  hydropower, French electricity was not only more than 90% low‐carbon, but also less costly than  power from fossil fuels. That low cost allows French nuclear to help neighboring countries to reduce  the air pollution that would otherwise come from their coal and gas power plants. Pollution from  coal and gas power plants is responsible for a large share of the 500,000 premature deaths per year  in Europe.

Sources :

Do you agree with the terms of this manifesto? Then say so : sign it !

You will receive an e-mail for verification purposes. Please don’t forget to confirm your signature. We need this to make sure signatures are real and make a rigorous count.

You can also join Voices by clicking on Become a member  or on  Volunteer to help. And you can help us by making a donation.

Signer le Manifeste / Sing the Manifesto

LE MANIFESTE DES VOIX

Nous, les Voix du Nucléaire, sommes un collectif de citoyens qui soutenons publiquement la production d’électricité d’origine nucléaire pour les avantages écologiques, économiques et sociétaux majeurs qu’elle présente, en nous appuyant sur la promotion des faits la concernant.

L’exercice est difficile. Nous savons à quel point l’énergie nucléaire est controversée.

Nous le faisons par sens des responsabilités, vis-à-vis de la planète et des générations actuelles et futures sur lesquelles s’abat une double menace : la restriction de l’accès à l’énergie, pourtant indispensable en quantité au bien-être des populations, et le changement climatique dont les effets impactent déjà durement notre civilisation et sa stabilité.

L’énergie nucléaire est une partie incontournable de la solution et à ce titre il serait injuste d’en priver les générations à venir pour des peurs dont les motifs ne résistent pas à l’épreuve des faits. Les mythes créés et entretenus autour de l’énergie nucléaire empêchent encore une trop grande partie de l’humanité d’y avoir recours.

Nous nous associons aux nombreux mouvements citoyens qui se mobilisent actuellement pour faire évoluer règles et mentalités au nom de l’alerte climatique donnée par les scientifiques. Mais nous insistons aussi pour que les termes de cette alerte ne soient pas censurés et que la parole des scientifiques soit entendue, qu’elle soit en accord ou pas avec les convictions que chacun porte.

Il est nécessaire et légitime qu’une attention forte soit portée à toutes les technologies et aux conséquences de leur industrialisation. Mais cette attention doit être fondée sur les faits, au risque de se tromper de menace.

Le rejet a priori de l’énergie nucléaire est infondé. Il porte un triple préjudice :

Il empêche que l’énergie nucléaire et ses avantages soient déployés, autant que possible, au bénéfice des populations, alors que le GIEC souligne le nécessaire accroissement du parc nucléaire mondial pour lutter contre le changement climatique et que les Nations Unies rappellent l’importance vitale de l’amélioration de l’accès à l’énergie pour un tiers de la population mondiale.

Il détourne des moyens publics et privés considérables, ainsi que les efforts importants consentis par l’ensemble de la population, de domaines où ils seraient immédiatement traduits en décarbonation effective. Nous avons en France déjà engagé plus de 150 milliards d’euros pour décarboner un secteur électrique qui l’est déjà tandis que nous accumulons un retard coupable partout ailleurs. Il discrédite des femmes et des hommes politiques qui ne savent comment, malgré les faits et l‘urgence, revenir sur leurs prises de position passées.

Il entraîne dans son sillage des mouvements qui propagent la méfiance vis-à-vis de la science et qui renient ou ignorent les faits. Adoptant les travers de l’idéologie, ces mouvements finissent par aller à l’encontre des objectifs d’écologie, de justice sociale et de progrès qu’ils prétendent vouloir contribuer à atteindre.

Nous partageons ici quelques réalités méconnues, emblématiques de l’incompréhension qui entoure l’énergie nucléaire, et appelons ceux qui se reconnaissent dans la réalité scientifique et la prééminence des faits à nous rejoindre pour les rétablir et permettre ainsi aux citoyens de débattre et de décider avec toutes les cartes en main.

**your signature**

Partager / Share

   

Twitter

Grand dossier

Lettre ouverte aux nouveaux députés

Pin It on Pinterest