Faced with new nuclear power, the "anti" are coming out of the woodwork

In February 1975, "the call of the 400", a column signed by 400 scientists in the newspaper Le Monde, protested against the construction of the first power stations in France.

“We are being asked to replace the plague with cholera, the climatic plague with nuclear cholera,” Marc Denis, a doctor in atomic and molecular physics, protested on Tuesday. He was invited to present his arguments, with other critics of the atom, in a room of the National Assembly, under the gaze of deputies from France Insoumise (LFI) and EELV who had organized the demonstration.

A new call to “refuse any new nuclear program” warns of the dangers of this energy and challenges its relevance for limiting climate change. Signed in June by 500 scientists, while the government decided to revive this industry and build six new generation EPR2 reactors in the coming years, with an option for eight additional, it now boasts 1.000 signatures from scientists.

Although he does not deny the need to urgently reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the face of climate disaster, Bernard Laponche, nuclear physicist and already a signatory of the 1974 appeal, wonders: in relation to renewable energies such as wind power or photovoltaics, "why choose the most polluting solution, the most dangerous in terms of accidents and the most expensive?"

In the 70s, he observes, the possibility of reducing energy consumption and developing renewables that were "less dangerous, rather more favorable on the climate issue and much less expensive" had not yet won people's minds, he remarks.

"Denial of Democracy"

“To respect the Paris agreement” of COP21 concluded in 2015 and reduce CO55 emissions by 2% compared to 1990 by 2030, as committed by the EU, Jean-Marie Brom, physicist of nuclear power and emeritus research director at the CNRS, believes that "the construction of six EPR2s", which will only be able to produce electricity "at best in 2037-2040, will not be of any help".

For an hour, the opponents, most of them historical "anti", who sometimes fear being mocked for their graying temples, also listed the dangers represented by nuclear waste, the risks of accident and the financial cost. They recalled that the Flamanville EPR is 12 years behind schedule and has seen its budget explode compared to the initial envelope.

Conversely, supporters of nuclear power, starting with the government, see it as a way to preserve France's energy sovereignty while reducing the consumption of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions.

Beyond the traditional criticisms made of nuclear power, some opponents of the atom who rallied to the cause more recently, such as Jeanne Mermet, a young activist who presents herself as a "deserted engineer", point to a "blatant denial of democracy", regarding of the country's energy policy.

The choice to revive nuclear power "must be concerted and debated, not only in its technical aspects by a small number of experts, but in all its components (ecological, social, economic), with the whole of society, in “drawing on the knowledge of the scientific community and taking into account social and climate justice,” she argued.