This is a subject on which the government has no trouble finding a majority: the revival of nuclear power is almost a consensual subject, from the RN to the majority through LR. Communists and some socialists can also be seduced. But Europe-Ecologie – Les Verts, with Marine Tondelier at their head, want to raise the anti-nuclear flag in France. The new national secretary of the ecologists proposes in particular a Citizens’ Convention on the question. She explains to 20 minutes why parliamentarians are on the wrong track.
The Assembly examined this week the bill on the acceleration of the revival of nuclear energy in France. A large majority should adopt it. The polls are also favorable to nuclear power. Is this a losing battle for you?
The polls are in favor of renewable energies much more than nuclear. We make people believe that we are going to do both: it is false. Nuclear power costs us so much that it prevents us from developing renewables. The problem is that these new EPRs [le gouvernement souhaite en faire construire six] will not help us to respect the Paris agreement, which commits us to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 40% in 2030. Because these EPRs will not be built, at best, before 2035 according to the official word of the government , and 2040 according to leaked reports in their possession. And they never managed to build one! That of Flamanville was to open in 2012 and cost 3 billion euros, we are in 2023, it is still not open, and we are at 20 billion. Parliamentarians can vote what they want, I bet that these EPR will not be in operation either in 2035 or in 2040.
Environmentalists have long lamented the lack of debate about our energy strategy. This time you are calling for a Citizens’ Convention, on the model of the one on the climate…
I am amazed at how difficult it is to have a serious and rational public debate on the subject. We have a nuclear lobby that spends “crazy dough”, which has very aggressive relays on social networks. But if we took 150 people drawn by lot to make them work on the subject, by ensuring that they form their own opinion, there is no reason for them to make the choice that the parliamentarians are going to make.
Can Emmanuel Macron accede to this request?
When 3 million people parade in the streets for the retreats and he doesn’t listen, we say to ourselves “what’s the point? “. But if he does not organize it himself, others can do so: the Economic, Social and Environmental Council for example, or trusted third parties. We put the subject on the table, and all possible means will be explored to make it happen.
One of the current criticisms concerns the use of water to cool the reactors, against a backdrop of drought…
A first problem is the use of water by nuclear power: admittedly, a good part is returned to the river, but 10°C warmer than the water withdrawn, which means that it evaporates more. It harms ecosystems, and it will get worse with global warming. But there is also the water consumed by nuclear power plants, that is to say used by the production process and not returned to the river: according to official government figures, it represents 20 to 30% of the total of water consumption in France, more than all domestic uses. And by 2050, there will be 40% less flow in French rivers and rivers…
The French Nuclear Energy Company (Sfen) proposes to install the power stations by the sea to remedy this problem…
Environmentalists have proposed and had the Senate adopt an amendment that prevents new EPRs from being placed in flood zones. This concerns the Blayais, Gravelines and Penly power plants, all by the sea. We forget that any EPRs which would open in 2040 will be in operation until 2100. In an industry as dangerous as nuclear power, choosing to to settle on the coasts is to place oneself in the hands of fate.
As you have already mentioned, such a massive and rapid revival of nuclear power raises industrial and technical questions. But wouldn’t they be the same in the event of mass production of renewable energies?
First of all, whatever the scenario, nuclear or renewable, we can see that we will not be able to continue this headlong rush to use ever more energy. We must activate a sobriety plan, thanks to the thermal rehabilitation of housing and by thinking about our uses. Then, the question is to know what effort we make, with what energy, and with what means. It’s not simple, because nothing is simple when it comes to energy. This is why there is a real conflict between nuclear and renewable energies. Germany, for example, will be 80% renewable energy in 2030, and is already at 49%. This shows that it is possible to rapidly increase a country’s capacities in this area if one decides to do so.
She embarked on this path long before us…
If we never start, it will always be too late. France had committed to be 23% renewable energy in 2022 with the European Commission. It was already very small arm, and we are the only country in Europe not to have respected this commitment. We were only at 19% in 2022. It’s a shame, and we’re missing out on enormous industrial and commercial potential. We lost far too much time in operational deployment, but also in research and development. If we had put a quarter of the amount used on nuclear energy into renewables, we would have saved so much time. Unfortunately, our absolute, irrational faith in nuclear power has caused us to fall behind dangerously and climatically.
The energy crisis, particularly linked to the war in Ukraine, seems to have brought French people’s opinion closer to nuclear power, even those who have ecological convictions…
The nature of the public debate on the subject and the money deployed by the pro-nuclear lobby, particularly in France, are bearing fruit. However, it is necessary to explain to the French women and men that half of the nuclear reactors were shut down this fall, and it is not because of the ecologists. Because it didn’t work, because they are undergoing maintenance, because there are micro-cracks, poor workmanship, because this nuclear industry has itself reached a dead end. This demonstrates the fact that betting everything on nuclear power is irresponsible.
You have launched the States General of Ecology with a view to transforming political ecology into a mass movement. What is it concretely?
Many people do not want to join a political party, neither ours nor another. On the other hand, more and more people are ecologists in the back of their minds, voters for a day or forever, people worried about their children and their grandchildren… Those whom Bruno Latour called “class ecological”, potentially in the majority in this country. But this class is not self-aware, not organized, whereas opposite they are.
My job is to create this place for all these people and give them the keys to the truck. We have provided ways to speak out, a large popular online survey on lesecologistes.fr, notebooks of grievances, workshops. We go to meet the inhabitants, the rural areas, the working-class neighborhoods.
At the end of this listening phase, there will be a phase of reflection: people selected at random will decide the questions that arise. This will end in the summer with a major refoundation convention to launch this new movement, which it is hoped will have a million sympathizers before the end of the mandate.
What is your assessment of these last three months of mobilization against the pension reform?
First, I refuse to talk about it as if it’s over, because I think it’s all just beginning. The coming weeks are unpredictable. Then, what happened goes much further than the subject of pensions: France raised its head after a series of humiliations. This reform was one humiliation too many. Something started: inter-union work that hadn’t existed for a very long time, massive French support for union action, work between unions and progressive political parties.
Including whether the reform is well implemented?
The only possible defeat is that of the government. Either because they will be forced to withdraw this reform, or because they will continue to force their way against nine out of ten active French people who reject their text and it can only go wrong. I hear a lot of people say to us: “we were told that we needed an exemplary social movement. We stuck to our guns. But if marching in calm, appeasement, being polite and saying thank you does not work, we will also draw the consequences”.
I want to warn about this, in a context where we have a President of the Republic elected against Marine Le Pen by only 58%, thanks to the mobilization of people like me who know what the far right is in power. All this will leave traces. Emmanuel Macron is the guarantor of the unity of this country, of the cohesion of its institutions, and he is in the process of fracturing it. I don’t know how he can ignore that in view of 2027.