Corinne Lepage, former environment minister: “Nuclear energy is one of the most expensive forms of energy and it makes us dependent on Russia.”

has With few exceptions, the current presentation of nuclear power in the media and public discourse is part of a movement that is unfortunately gaining momentum: an alternative truth dear to Putin, Trump and a few others. This has the unfortunate consequence of telling a completely false story, using a well-known proverb: “The bigger, the more acceptable.” »

We can be pro-nuclear because the fight against climate change is an absolute priority, arguing that renewables will never produce enough electricity. This is more and more accurate, but it is a thesis that can be understood. On the other hand, listening to lies, the French today are convinced of a series of follies:

“Nuclear energy is the cheapest. » It is an attempt. While France has indeed received cheap energy for many years thanks to nuclear energy paid for by the French, nuclear energy itself is one of the most expensive today. In an interview with Amory Lovins the world On October 31, it is said: “Bloomberg New Energy Finance analysts say new nuclear kilowatt-hours cost 5 to 13 times more than new solar or wind kilowatt-hours. »

A completely unwise financial choice

“Atomic energy is the only one that can ensure the independence of France. » It is completely false. Wind, sun, water, from which our territory benefits, ensures our independence. The same does not apply to uranium that is mined in countries “complex”For example, Niger or Kazakhstan. The fuel itself makes us 30% dependent on Russia’s Rosatom, as if we didn’t have enough precedent for gas. Moreover, Germany never considered nuclear energy as the energy to ensure the country’s independence.

“The nuclear industry is the flagship of French industry. » He was. Unfortunately, he is no more. No EPR was sold overseas after the two Hinkley Point reactors were actually sold to EDF as British Energy is owned by EDF. No need to stop at Olkiluoto (nineteen years late) and Flamanville 2 (cost 19.1 billion 3.3 billion planned and still to be launched).

“The current nuclear failure is the responsibility of the environmentalists who accepted the closure of Fessenheim. » This is obviously completely false. The failures in the nuclear sector are the responsibility of the sector’s own players. Q: Totally unwise financial choices, $10 billion to $20 billion in lost investments abroad, lack of proper maintenance of the French fleet. In particular, eleven years after Fukushima, power plants that, for purely financial reasons, decided to turn to subcontractors rather than retain highly qualified personnel. As for Fessenheim, its closure is due to EDF’s choice not to invest from 2018 in this power plant, which should actually be closed if Flamanville opens. This choice resulted in a closure in 2020 due to minimal work being carried out, even though Flamanville was not open and therefore the plant could continue to operate. Moreover, this closure was accompanied by hundreds of millions of euros paid to EDF for alleged losses, for which it is in fact largely responsible.