Environmentalists must defend nuclear (Tribune) COMMENTS
By Bertrand Cassoret, author of the book "Energy transition, these inconvenient truths", the 2nd edition of which was published in 2020 by Deboeck Supérieur.
Environmental associations are historically against nuclear power. Of course, this energy has flaws, but today it solves many more environmental problems than it creates and it would be logical for ecologists to defend it. Some have taken the plunge.
The main current environmental problem is global warming, more than 80% caused by the CO2 emitted by the combustion of fossil fuels, coal, gas and oil. Figure 1 shows the origin of these emissions in the world and in France. As we can see, at the global level, the 1st cause of emissions is the production of electricity, the first source for producing it being coal. Electricity represents only 20% of the final energy consumed but nearly half of CO2 emissions.
It can be seen that in France, where emissions per person are lower than in comparable countries, and where nuclear energy is highly developed, the share of electricity production in emissions is much lower.
Figure 1: CO2 emissions from energy by sector. Sources: IEA 2017 (2015 figures) / European Environment Agency 2018 / General Commission for Sustainable Development.
Oil transport, gas heating and industry are also sources of CO2 emissions. While it is possible to modify certain industrial processes, to improve energy efficiency in order to consume less, for example by insulating housing, and to encourage greater sobriety, it is clear that in order to consume less energy fossil fuels, transfer part of the consumption of oil and gas to electricity.
Thus the developments of the electric vehicle and heating by electric heat pump should contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, provided of course that the additional electricity is not produced with fossil fuels.
The spectacular development in recent years of wind power and photovoltaics has made it possible to slightly reduce the use of fossil fuels and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Nuclear at the service of the climate
Thus we can see in Figure 2 that Germany's CO2 emissions are falling. However, we note that those of France, often accused of being behind in the development of renewables, have fallen significantly since the 1980s when the nuclear fleet was commissioned.
France was rather ahead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, nuclear energy produces very little CO2, about as much as wind power and four times less than photovoltaics, according to IPCC figures summarized in Figure 3.
Figure 2: Evolution of CO 2 emissions from Germany and France from 1965 to 2018, in million tonnes. (Source: BP statistical review of world energy 2019.)
Figure 3: Greenhouse gas emissions according to electricity production, median values in gCO2eq/kWh. According to “Technology-specific Cost and Performance Parameters”, Annex III of the 5th report of the IPCC-IPCC, 2014.
Among the problems related to energy consumption, there is of course not only greenhouse gas emissions: all energy sources have their drawbacks. Fossil fuels emit, among other things, fine particles and nitrogen oxides, and are largely responsible for the 5 million premature deaths a year due to atmospheric pollution.
European coal-fired power plants cause nearly 23,000 premature deaths each year [1] , more than Chernobyl! Fossil fuels represent, in number of deaths, several hundred Chernobyls each year! Germany has pledged to phase out coal in 2038….
Renewable energies, although less polluting, are not free from drawbacks. Wood, the 1st renewable energy in the world, emits very harmful fine particles and is only renewable if it is used sparingly.
Hydroelectricity, the second renewable energy in the world, has the major drawback of modifying ecosystems, releasing greenhouse gases by the decomposition of plants, and requiring the evacuation of populations. Thus the construction of the Three Gorges dam in China required the evacuation of 1.8 million people, 18 times more than in Fukushima. Dam failures have killed more people in history than nuclear accidents.
Wind and solar energy, which are currently developing a lot, seem to have few disadvantages. However, many life cycle analyzes show that these energy sources require much more materials than other sources, again with environmental impacts linked to exploitation and processing.
Photovoltaics thus emit significant quantities of fine particles, nitrogen oxides or non-volatile organic compounds [2]; some studies conclude that it causes more years of life to be lost than nuclear [3] . In addition, it requires large areas which are then no longer available for vegetation.
Is it reasonable to go all-renewable?
It remains true, however, that photovoltaics and wind power are, like nuclear power, much less polluting than fossil fuels, but do not have the disadvantage of producing hazardous waste for a very long time.
The question is therefore whether we can do without both fossil fuels and nuclear energy, and therefore only use renewables. This question has been debated for a few years and it is more difficult to answer than it seems.
Indeed, it is not enough to calculate the number of wind turbines and photovoltaic panels necessary to produce the same annual quantity of energy as that currently used: the electricity produced by wind turbines and solar panels has a major drawback: it very difficult to store.
However, we need electricity at all times, in variable quantities, independently of the meteorology which determines wind and solar production. We also need electricity on windless evenings! Therefore, to know if we can envisage a 100% renewable future, complex modeling taking into account the behavior of consumers, meteorological statistics, future international trade, production potential by hydroelectricity, biogas, geothermal energy, complex systems of storage…
No study leads to a 100% renewable system without significant changes in consumption. Thus the Ademe study, which aims for 100% renewable electricity in France, considers a reduction and postponements in electricity consumption, fossil imports, and a substantial storage system [4] .
I liked a @YouTube video https://t.co/9Vy6TA4c4l How to Make Green Tea Chocolate Chip Cookies 녹차 초코 쿠키 ~ Snowy Winter
— Artyom Tsilis Thu Jun 21 12:50:55 +0000 2018
The NégaWatt scenario, which concerns all energies and not just electricity, requires dividing our consumption by 2 to 3, a very ambitious objective [5] .
RTE's scenarios [6] seem to show that it is possible to go down to 50% nuclear power (but not zero) without relying more on fossil fuels, provided that consumption remains stable despite the development of electric vehicles, and that it adapts to production, i.e. to the weather.
It is therefore clear to me that the objective of 100% renewable energies is currently a utopia, and that it must be supplemented by nuclear energy rather than fossil fuels. Some environmentalists are now admitting this and hopefully they will be followed.
Environmentalists who defend nuclear power
Thus in Germany Veronika Wendland and Rainer Moormann, who were anti-nuclear, have made a lot of noise in recent weeks by asking to postpone the end of nuclear energy scheduled for 2022. Thus Rainer Moormann, figurehead of the fight anti-nuclear, said in 2020: "Even considering the worst of nuclear power, even if a 'super disaster' were to occur, it would still be less severe than what climate change can cause. »
In Finland, the Green Party has since 2018 been "open to all research and development of low-emission and environmentally friendly technologies", including nuclear.
Canadian Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, admitted in the German daily Die Welt in 2008: “I am absolutely convinced today that the campaign against nuclear energy was stupid. We have made the mistake of lumping nuclear weapons and nuclear energy together, as if anything nuclear is bad. »
The American Michael Shellenberger, Founder of the "Environmental Progress" association, campaigns for nuclear power in the name of eco-modernism and declared in 2019 "civil nuclear power has caused much less damage than other energy sources" .
The English Zion lights left the environmental movement "Extinction Rebellion" to join "Environmental Progress": "Now I left the organization to take up a position as an activist for nuclear energy […] Surrounded by anti-nuclear activists , I had let the fear of radiation, nuclear waste and weapons of mass destruction seep into my subconscious. I realized that I had been duped into anti-science sentiment all along”
In France, Brice Lalonde, ecologist and Minister of Ecology from 1988 to 1992, declared to La Voix du Nord in January 2016: "I call on ecologists to take into account nuclear power, which does not emit CO 2 and which is safe in our countries. I was a fierce anti-nuclear, but we must not close the door to these technologies when there is an urgent need to initiate a transition to clean energy. »
In the preface he wrote for my book "Energy transition, these inconvenient truths" [7] , he declared in 2019 "It's the elephant in the transition: nuclear energy... Yes we are a few among environmentalists to silence, or even abandon, our hostility to him. Climate change is so monstrous that we see nuclear power with different eyes. Nuclear energy produces a lot of energy with very little CO2, it occupies little surface area, its impact is less than that of coal, a deadly source of energy, or that of gas which leaks to the great detriment of the climate, and who blows up houses from time to time. Nuclear power is therefore very useful against climate change. It is high time that the anti-nuclear stop contorting themselves to deny the obvious. The systematic denigration of nuclear power is no longer in season. […]nuclear power is a powerful ally against climate change. To fight an ally instead of fighting the enemy is to risk becoming, whether we like it or not, his accomplice. I would not like environmentalists to vituperate nuclear dogmatically, even preferring fossil gas, and becoming the fifth column of climate change by making the battle more difficult to win. It would be tragic. »
Jean-Marc Jancovici, famous engineer and author of numerous conferences and popularization works, very concerned about the problems of fossil fuels and global warming, continues to defend nuclear power in the name of the environment.
Climatologist François-Marie Bréon, member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), defends nuclear power and declared on September 27, 2020 during the "Stand-up for nuclear" day: "We do not nuclear for pleasure, but because we have no choice, because of the climate emergency", "We must restore the truth to the general public so that politicians can make good decisions without risking an electoral sanction “.
The French explorer Jean-Louis Etienne, defender of the environment, also defends nuclear power: “no other technology is mature enough to produce clean energy on a massive scale”, “CO2 is the worst waste. It is diffuse, uncontrollable… It has rapid consequences on the environment… Nuclear waste, on the other hand, is identified, located, manageable and perhaps reusable in the long term.”
The association of nuclear ecologists, AEPN, has been defending nuclear power in the name of ecology since 1996.
The "Sauvons le Climat" association campaigns for the reduction of CO2 emissions through the use of nuclear power. It has published numerous studies, including the Négatep scenario [8], which explains how to divide the consumption of fossil fuels by four by developing renewables AND nuclear.
Finally, you should know that the vast majority of IPCC scenarios use nuclear power to limit global warming.
————————-
References :
[1]“Europe’s Dark Cloud. How coal-burning countries are making their neighbors sick”, WWF, HEAL, CAN Europe, Sandbag, 2016.
[2]Franz H. Koch, Hydropower-Internalized Costs and Externalized Benefits, International Energy Agency (IEA) – Implementing Agreement for Hydropower Technologies and Programs, Ottawa, Canada, 2000.
[3]A. Rabl & JV Spadaro, “The external costs of electricity”, Revue de l'énergie, no. 525, p. 151-163, March-April 2001.
[4]ADEME, A 100% renewable electricity mix? Analyzes and optimizations, 2015.
[5]Négawatt Association, “Scenario Négawatt 2017-2050”, 2017.
[6]Electricity transmission network, Forecast balance sheet of the electricity supply-demand balance in France, 2017 edition.
[7]Bertrand Cassoret, Energy transition, these inconvenient truths, Deboeck Supérieur editions, 2020.
[8]Claude Acket, Hubert Flocard, Claude Jeandron, Hervé Nifenecker, Henry Prévot, Jean-Marie Seiler, Divide CO 2 emissions due to energy by four: the Négatep scenario, Association "Sauvons le climat", 2017.
Similar items
By chatlivecamsex
