"Without nuclear energy costs explode"
Bernard Bigot, High Commissioner for Atomic Energy and alternative energy, draws lessons from the catastrophe of Fukushima.
The FIGARO. – Germany and its industry turning its back on nuclear power. Do you regret that choice?
Bernard BIGOT. – The German decision is final. The choice of Siemens, it makes sense: even a very large international company has no choice but to follow the policy direction of his home country. Yes, of course, we regret this shift: the nuclear returned to 20% in the German energy mix and it will therefore increase the use of fossil fuels to make up the loss. The need for electrical interconnections will also grow to increase import capacity, which will weigh even more on costs.
The cost of this decision has recently been estimated at 250 billion euros for Germany.What would happen if France were to make the same choice?
It is quite normal that the competent institutions are seeking to quantify the opportunity cost from the current nuclear power generation for everyone to measure the financial consequences of the choice that was made out of nuclear power in 2022. We must examine the assumptions, but the figure quoted seems a reasonable order of magnitude. As for France, whose nuclear is more than three times larger than the German fleet, I believe that at this stage, no figure can reasonably be argued, because alternative resources are not the same . The impact may be even heavier than the simple application of a rule of three.How much is an open question.
Is it possible however that the French nuclear production back?
Our country has decided to preserve its energy independence as much as possible, and nuclear power contributes significantly. In 2003, energy imports have cost 23 billion euros to France, or 10% of its export income, all economic sectors. In 2010, this figure rose to 48 billion, or 25% pay day loans. This year, we should surpass the 60 billion. Suffice to say that without nuclear energy costs explode in unprecedented proportions. This does not mean that we should give renewable energy: in the next five years, CEA proposes to double its budget and staffing in this area, respectively, to the tune of 300 million euros and 1,800 people.The government wants the CEA adopts renewables the same approach as for the nuclear namely stimulate research and encourage the emergence of powerful industrial sectors.
In addition to France and six months after the catastrophe of Fukushima, the world nuclear power is still flickering it?
Such an accident in a large industrial country known for its industrial skills was seen as a legitimate shock wave in the world. Today is the time for questions: what are the reasons for this catastrophe on the one hand, how to protect the other. Meanwhile, a barrel permanently installed above the $ 105, the differential change unfavorable to consumer countries and the strengthening of climatic requirements lead to the need to maintain nuclear.All countries are conducting security audits: complementary investments in facilities that should result in increase their robustness.
The first reports on the stress tests suggest they think that plants are safe?
Two points can be distinguished. First, the facility design: it shows a good resistance in most countries, which involve changes at the margin. However, the chain of exploitation, which covers both human organization that the reaction of the authorities, should be carefully checked to ensure that safety is ensured at all times. In Japan, it was deficient, and valuable time was lost: 100 m³ of water per hour, that is to say a quarter of a fire truck, would probably permit the early hours of to avoid radioactive releases into the air.