<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<a
href="http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3232,36-683369,0.html"
eudora="autourl">http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3232,36-683369,0.html<br>
<br>
</a> <b>Nuclear Energy: A Fallacious Response to the
Oil Crisis</b> <br>
By Stéphane Lhomme <br>
Le Monde <br>
<br>
Monday 29 August 2005 <br>
<br>
The price of oil takes off and global warming gets
worse. At the same time, the French population has been practically
bludgeoned to prostrate themselves before the Millau viaduct and the
Airbus A380, even though they are perfect examples of the constant
increase in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions - in France
as much as elsewhere. <br>
<br>
To try to cover up this sad reality, new media
spectaculars have been organized to celebrate the decisions to
construct
the ITER and EPR nuclear reactors. Officially, the atom would allow us
to
fight against global warming and suffer less from the global rise in
crude prices. As though nuclear generators breathed in greenhouse gases
or cooled down the atmosphere! And as if nuclear energy itself weren't
expensive beyond measure ... <br>
<br>
Why, in spite of its 58 nuclear reactors - practically
one for every million inhabitants - is France still hit along with
everyone else with the full force of the takeoff in crude oil prices?
The
explanation is simple: contrary to the fanciful assertions of diverse
personalities, including Nicolas Sarkozy, the atom does not represent
50%, but only 17% of the energy consumed in France! After having lied
to
citizens to make them believe in the "nuclear miracle" for
decades, France was forced to adopt international conventions with
regard
to energy accounting in 2002. The nuclear share was automatically
dropped
to its real value, some 17%, rather than the 50% unduly advertised.
<br>
<br>
From the perspective of anti-nuclear proponents,
that's 17% too much. But ultimately, it's a pathetic performance. In
fact, France, "kingdom of the atom," has a 75% dependence on
fossil energies (oil, gas, coal) and remains one of the major
greenhouse
gas emitting countries. <br>
<br>
Over the entire planet, with 440 reactors, nuclear
energy represents barely 6% of the energy consumed: a share much too
marginal to limit recourse to hydrocarbons and to have an influence on
the climate. And it's a share in decline: the International Energy
Agency
(IEA), although favorable to nuclear energy, acknowledged on October 27
that by around 2030 it would be less than 5% (World Energy Outlook).
<br>
<br>
Nonetheless, the atom's proponents would like to
generalize the French model on a Continental, even global, scale. By
keeping one nuclear reactor per million people as a guideline, that
implies the construction of around 7,000 nuclear reactors in 20 years.
All that to cover only around 17% of world energy usage, to remain 75%
dependent on fossil fuels and to continue to aggravate global warming.
<br>
<br>
Now, in any case, that will not actually happen. China
is presented as a veritable nuclear Eldorado because it foresees
building
... 30 reactors. Far, very far, from the thousands evoked. And that to
royally achieve 4% of its electricity from nuclear power. There is
more:
in the next twenty years, half the nuclear reactors now operating will
have been closed down. <br>
<br>
The decline of nuclear energy is an inexorable
reality, given that global reserves of uranium - the fuel that feeds
reactors - are also on the road to exhaustion. According to estimates,
at
the present rate of extraction, there's enough for another 52 years.
<br>
<br>
If we suddenly multiplied the number of nuclear
reactors on the earth by ten, at best there would be only 20 years of
uranium left and humanity would then soon find itself in charge of an
immense nuclear park ... definitively shut down! <br>
<br>
Finally, the veil is beginning to come off the real
cost of nuclear energy, which grows heavier as least as quickly as the
oil bill. Interviewed on January 2 by <i>le Journal du dimanche</i> [a
Sunday news program], Industrial Minister Patrick Devedjian confessed
what anti-nuclear activists have claimed for a long time: "For years
the French have contributed to the development of nuclear parks through
their taxes." <br>
<br>
These sums do not appear on electricity bills, which
appear artificially low, in the sense that they also fail to include
the
costs of dismantling nuclear installations and taking care of their
waste. <br>
<br>
Thus, on January 26, 2005, the Court of Accounts
showed that the money necessary for those two activities did not exist,
or only in ridiculously inadequate amounts. Fortunately - in a manner
of
speaking - there are also nuclear reactors in Great Britain: that's
where
the true numbers are little by little coming from. <br>
<br>
August 11, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
estimated the cost of dismantling Britain's 20 nuclear sites at 66
billion Pounds Sterling (96 billion Euros), versus the preceding
estimate
of 48 billion pounds (70 billion Euros). <br>
<br>
Carrying back these numbers and applying them to the
French nuclear industry - which, apart from its 58 reactors, counts
dozens of sites and installations - would produce a minimum cost of 150
billion Euros! It would be even more surprising if the actual bill were
not even more.... <br>
<br>
Finally, not only will the explosion in oil prices and
global warming not save nuclear energy, but, on the contrary, the
aggravation of these phenomena will rapidly demonstrate the atom's
utter
inability to provide an alternative. <br>
<br>
All this data is well-known to French nuclearcrats.
Therefore, if they persist, it's neither through ignorance nor
stupidity:
by pretending to save the planet, they hope to just succeed in
perpetuating nuclear energy ... in France. When public opinion wakes up
to the fraud, they will say: "We have brand new nuclear reactors.
Perhaps we shouldn't have built them, but now that they're there, we
may
as well use them." <br>
<br>
Now, the truth is that the solutions for getting out
of nuclear energy are precisely the only ones that allow us to really
fight global warming and consuming more oil. <br>
<br>
Rich countries must make major reductions in their
energy consumption and, at the same time, finance the development of
renewable energies on the planet. <br>
<br>
May those who believe that to be a Utopian program
acknowledge that they do not want to leave future generations a
habitable
earth. <br>
<br>
<br>
<i>Stéphane Lhomme is the spokesman for the network
Sortir du nucléaire [Get out of Nuclear Energy]. <br>
<br>
</i>
<hr><i> Translation: <b>t r u t h o u t</b> French language
correspondent <a href="mailto:leslie.thatcher@truthout.org">Leslie
Thatcher</a>.</i> <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice
Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html">< http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html ></a>
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
TLCB Web Site: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org">< http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org ></a> [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]</pre>
</body>
</html>