Cédric Lewandowski: “There will be no victory in the fight against climate change without nuclear power”

Cédric Lewandowski is Executive Director of the EDF group, in charge of the Nuclear and Thermal Park Department. He is the author of the book Le Nucléaire (Que sais-je?, 2021).

FIGAROVOX. - Why write a book on nuclear power at a time when wind turbines and renewable energies are fashionable. Isn't nuclear a technology and an energy of the past?

Surely not ! Nuclear is the second clean energy source in the world. It represents around 10% of global electricity production and has seen a steady increase of around 15% since 2012. It is also the leading electricity production technology within the European Union with a 27% share.

In 2019, fifty-four new reactors were under construction worldwide and five new sites were started. In 2020, the United Arab Emirates connected its first nuclear power plant (Barakah) to the grid; Poland and Egypt, like more than twenty other countries in the world, are studying the possibility of going down the civilian nuclear route. For an "energy of the past", nuclear power has a bright future!

Would you go so far as to say that it is an ecological energy?

The numbers are there to prove it. According to IPCC studies, the CO ₂ emissions to produce one kWh of nuclear electricity are around 12g, a level comparable to wind-generated electricity, two and a half times lower than that of solar electricity. photovoltaic, 40 times less than for the energy produced by gas-fired thermal power stations and 70 times less compared to coal-fired power stations.

On the issue of the natural resource footprint of technologies, recent reports from the World Bank and the International Energy Agency (IEA) also reveal the good performance of nuclear power, which consumes little copper, aluminum, steel or glass, even more sparing in silver, tin, molybdenum, nickel or rare earths. In addition, reduced to the kWh produced, the ground footprint of the installations is particularly modest. All this confirms the environmental advantages of nuclear power.

See also – Jean-René Cazeneuve on the Climate law: “I have never been under so much pressure”

As Chernobyl and to a lesser extent Fukushima have shown, isn't the human and ecological risk, however, much greater?

Let us first specify that these two major accidents are very different in nature. The Chernobyl accident is notably due to human and organizational failures, while the origin of the Fukushima accident was an extraordinary natural disaster: an earthquake with a magnitude of 9 on the Richter scale followed by a tsunami that devastated nearly six hundred kilometers of the northwest coast of Japan, sometimes penetrating up to ten kilometers inland. The nuclear power plant was absolutely not endangered by the earthquake, which it resisted perfectly. On the other hand, the seven fifteen meter high waves of the tsunami, falling with unprecedented violence on the plant, destroyed the cooling water and electricity supply systems and it is for this reason that the plant of Fukushima found itself in great difficulty.

Lessons have been learned thanks to the analysis of experience feedback from these two accidents. After Chernobyl, many States reviewed the very organization of the nuclear sector with much stronger safety authorities than they were before. In France, after the Fukushima accident, the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) asked for improvements in order to further increase the robustness of nuclear power plants in the face of extreme situations. EDF has thus set up an additional backup system for the supply of water and electricity, and has also created a nuclear rapid action force, the FARN, capable of intervening in less than 24 hours on a site in difficulty. major.

In general, in the nuclear field, safety is a priority and permanent concern. The slightest events, incidents or anomalies are systematically analysed, making it possible to continuously improve the safety of the facilities: this can lead to modifications to the facilities, procedures or organisation.

What about waste management?

All industries produce waste. Our responsibility is obviously that there are as few as possible and to treat them as well as possible. In the case of nuclear waste, 60% comes from electricity generation and 40% from the medical sector, industry, etc. More than 90% of waste from the nuclear power industry is very weakly radioactive or short-lived. They mainly result from the operation and dismantling of facilities. They are packaged in a sealed manner and stored in three surface centres, managed by the National Agency for Radioactive Waste Management (ANDRA). Our objective is to reduce the volume of waste produced as much as possible: we have thus set up sorting and compacting systems in the power stations, and we have industrial units for processing this waste by means of fusion and 'incineration.

High-level waste, which constitutes the main questioning of our fellow citizens and on which we project a lot of fantasies, certainly corresponds to 95% of the level of radioactivity, but only to 0.2% of the total volume. Since the start of the civil nuclear fleet, 50 years ago, they represent a volume of 3,740m3, the equivalent of an Olympic swimming pool. Currently, this waste is conditioned in containers before being transferred to Cigeo, the French deep disposal center project piloted by ANDRA, planned to accommodate it by 2035. Finally, it should be noted that 96% of spent fuel is recyclable and can be used to manufacture new fuels, which makes it possible to divide by 4 to 5 the volume of the most radioactive waste and to reduce the use of natural resources by 10% today, from 20 to 25% to the 2030 horizon.

How do you explain that the nuclear debate arouses so much passion?

For a large public, nuclear power is inseparable from the image of the Hiroshima bomb. This image, reinforced by the fear of accidents, contributes to making any debate on nuclear energy complex and quickly passionate, even dogmatic. In truth, nuclear power is a complex subject, quite far removed from the daily life of the majority of our fellow citizens, with numerous technical, economic and environmental dimensions. Debating this subject is therefore very demanding, it requires going beyond the simple binary opposition, "I am for" or "I am against", to leave the defense of postures of principle, to distinguish facts from opinions, to privilege the factual sensational. We should also note that recent polls show growing French support for nuclear energy; these are cyclical trends, which are often found after the low points observed after Chernobyl and Fukushima. It is therefore up to us to provide substantiated information to those who are wondering…. and that is the whole object of Que sais-je!

Are you in favor of the dismantling of at least part of the installations like in Fessenheim?

Since the start of the civil nuclear adventure, more than 180 nuclear reactors have been shut down around the world. The closure of a plant can occur for three reasons: a technical imperative, an economic reality (when the plant is no longer profitable, there have been several cases in the United States) or a political decision, the choice of Angela Merkel to get out of nuclear power is the most radical example of this, which is leading Germany today to be in great difficulty on the energy front since it has to compensate for nuclear power with coal and gas, that is- i.e. carbonaceous means.

The final shutdown of Fessenheim's operation on June 30, 2020 was a very special moment since it was the pioneer of the power plants of the major French nuclear power program which made EDF the world's leading nuclear operator. Its closure was not due to technical or economic issues, but to a political decision assumed by the government. The State has decided, with the Energy-Climate law of 2019, to reduce the share of nuclear power in our country's energy mix to 50% by 2035, compared to 70% currently. Therefore, our duty is now to demonstrate our ability to dismantle this industrial tool in the best safety and security conditions.

Are alternative energies likely to replace nuclear in the long term?

IEA Executive Director Dr Fatih Birol said in 2019 that given the immensity of the challenge of climate change, we could not afford to exclude “low carbon” technologies and, indeed, to meet the challenge. you of the commitments of the Paris Agreement, it is absolutely necessary to add the carbon-free means and not to substitute them one for the other. There will be no victory in the fight against climate change without nuclear power. But, there will be no victory either without a strong increase in renewable energies. As decided by France within the framework of the PPE, many countries are converging on an energy solution combining renewable and nuclear energies. Hydraulic, solar, wind, carbon-free hydrogen, nuclear are all technologies that are part of the energy solution to be implemented and we must intensify our efforts in all these areas to avoid reaching +3°C in 2050. I believe in progress scientist, who never ceased to surprise us, to amaze us. It is therefore entirely possible that alternative energies will replace nuclear power in the long term… or that new nuclear technologies will be required.

At a time when we deplore our deindustrialization and our strategic dependence, is nuclear power also an indispensable tool of sovereignty?

The nuclear industry is not an industry like the others: it is an industry of sovereignty, in its civil and military applications, considered as a strategic sector by a growing number of countries. The high technological content of civil nuclear power is a driving force for all the industrial, research and education systems of the countries that develop it. Mastering it is therefore essential for the major world powers which have reaffirmed their commitment to the nuclear field, as well as for countries wishing to commission a nuclear power plant for the first time. For many of these States, the objective is to reduce their CO2 _emissions but also their energy dependence or to guarantee water resources by desalinating seawater.

Today, “nuclear diplomacy” is more active than ever, against the backdrop of a technological and economic war between Russia, the United States and China. These three powers are resolutely committed to the development of new civilian nuclear technologies, support their national industry and have strong international ambitions. The decrease in the number of reactors in operation in Western Europe contributes to weakening our ability to influence the global governance of this sector.

Nuclear power is now one of the most important industrial sectors in our country: it represents more than 220,000 employees and 3,000 companies for an annual turnover of €47.5 billion. The major national industrial project to extend the operating life of existing power plants, which we call the Grand Carénage, is more than 95% carried out by companies located on French territory with professionals, very often at a high level of technicality, including the he job, I would like to emphasize, cannot be relocated.

Let us also not forget that for more than 30 years, electricity exports have made a positive contribution to our country's balance of payments and that nuclear power generation has ensured the supply of electricity to industrialists present in our territory a price, excluding taxes, competitive. More generally, having a dynamic and active civil nuclear industry in France, supported by a state industrial vision, allowing national control of a low-carbon electricity production technology, is essential for the competitiveness of our companies and our influence. international. Clearly, the principles on which the creation of civil nuclear power was founded in France, energy independence and security of supply are still fully relevant.

In recent years have we lost the lead we had in the field?

From the outset, nuclear power has been an area of ​​excellence for France. Since the discovery of uranium rays in 1896, our scientists and industrialists have distinguished themselves in the development of this energy. I am of course thinking of Henri Becquerel, Pierre and Marie Curie, Nobel Prize in Physics in 1903, Irène and Frédéric Joliot-Curie, Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1935. On the eve of the Second World War, France was at the forefront of global research in this field, but at the Liberation, everything had to be started over. The creation of the Atomic Energy Commission and the reconstitution of the research teams enabled France to quickly regain its place: the first divergence of ZOE, the first French atomic pile, took place on December 15, 1948, the French nuclear program was launched on March 6, 1974.

Such a success was possible thanks to the coordinated commitment of researchers, scientists and engineers, the launch of a voluntary plan by the State and the investment of major industrial groups, but also the dynamism of a number of SMEs and ETI.

EDF is today the world's leading operator and we have a nuclear industry in France whose excellence is recognized, which allows us to be present in all segments of the nuclear industry, a position shared only with the States States, Russia and very soon China. I believe in the role of history in building the future: tomorrow like yesterday, the resolute and coordinated commitment of researchers, industrial players and the State is essential and, I hope, will be able to convince new talented generations. to join us to guarantee the sustainability of this great national success that is the French nuclear industry.

See also – Covid-19, nuclear, vaccination: the Polynesians hope that the arrival of Macron “will change things”