Nuclear power is not good for the climate, according to Hervé Kempf

In his latest book, published in Italy by Einaudi, the French journalist provides his opinion on why nuclear power is not a good investment for the climate.

The April 26, 1986, at 1.23 am, reactor 4 of the nuclear power plant Chernobyl exploded, transforming that event in the most serious accident in history of nuclear energy and the only one, together with that of Fukushima of 2011, to be classified at the seventh level, the maximum, of the Ines catastrophic scale, the international scale of nuclear events.

The Chernobyl disaster pushed several countries, including Italy, to abandon nuclear production as a source of electricity.But the discussion around the atom has never ended and, especially in recent years, there are several pressure groups and politicians who consider nuclear energy a safe and low-CO2 source to be taken seriously:in Italy, for example, the current Minister of the Environment and Energy Security, Gilberto Pichetto Fratin, recently launched a “national platform for sustainable nuclear energy”, with the aim of relaunching the "development of technologies with low environmental impact and high safety and sustainability standards".

But is nuclear power really the recipe for reducing emissions from the energy sector?According to the French journalist Herve Kempf, author of the book published by Einaudi “Nuclear is not good for the climate”, the answer is “absolutely not”.We interviewed him.

In his book he states that one of the main problems related to nuclear issues is the lack of competence among journalists.What do you think are the causes of this lack?
Nuclear energy is a highly technical sector, both from a technological and economic point of view.French journalists rarely have a scientific background and therefore feel uncomfortable covering this topic.Furthermore, since it is a highly political, even ideological issue, journalists tend to adhere to the prevailing opinion, expressed very decisively and unequivocally by governments and the nuclear lobby.It is difficult to contradict or question them if you do not have a solid technical background.

In France, almost half of nuclear power plants remain idle in 2022, and there are problems related to the construction of the new EPR reactor.Can we therefore consider France a European example of the failure of the nuclear project?I ask this because at the moment, at least in Italy, there is a significant debate on the "return to nuclear power".
Almost all French nuclear power plants are back online in 2023.However, the construction of the new EPR reactor is proceeding with great difficulties.The total estimated cost is 13.2 billion euros, four times the original budget.As for the Epr2 projects (for commissioning around 2040), we still don't know if we will actually be able to build them and the provisional budget has already increased.France is focusing on a technology that is unable to solve problems and which absorbs a huge amount of money.While nuclear power plants built in the 1970s and 1980s are functioning properly, the same cannot be said of projects currently under construction.

When talking about nuclear disasters, Fukushima is often highlighted as a case where there were no casualties.However, the city of Namie clearly shows the consequences:before 2011, 21 thousand people lived there, now just 1,500 remain.
There is strong pressure from the nuclear lobby to deny the effects of nuclear accidents.True, serious accidents are very rare, but when they do occur, they make areas uninhabitable for many decades.This is the big difference with other types of industrial accidents.After a chemical explosion, if the land is reclaimed properly, it can be re-inhabited quite quickly.In contrast, an area where radioactive particles have been released into the environment following a nuclear accident, that area remains toxic for decades.Radioactivity prevents people from living in certain areas for a long time due to the risk of contamination or makes it almost impossible to do so due to precautions that must be constantly taken to limit contamination.

A major nuclear accident would entail enormous expenses for the state that suffers it.In the book you clearly talked about "bankruptcy risk", is that true?
The Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety in France studied the scenario of an accident releasing high levels of radioactivity:such an accident would lead to the evacuation of 2.5 million people and the contamination of 9 percent of the territory, with tens of thousands of cancer cases.What would be the costs of such an accident?According to another study, they could amount to 450 billion euros, around 20 percent of France's gross domestic product.I don't know if this would lead the state to bankruptcy, but the economy would certainly be traumatized for a long time.

Are reactors vulnerable to climate change?How?Are they a good investment for the climate?
Specialists have only started studying this question a few years ago, and so we can respond with a certain degree of caution.Rising sea levels and decreasing river flows will undoubtedly have an impact on the operation of nuclear reactors, which require a lot of water to cool the core.It is also possible that the expected increase in extreme weather events could weaken reactors or the power grid.

The answer to the second question, however, is clear:Investment in nuclear energy is not a good investment for the climate.Why not?Because the reactors to be built will not come into operation for at least fifteen years, at a time when it is necessary to drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions now, by 5 percent per year for a country like France or Italy by 2030.Nuclear energy has no positive effects on the climate in the short term.On the contrary, the economic and financial investment in nuclear power is devouring resources that we need to reduce energy consumption and develop renewable sources.

In your opinion, can the recipe for energy sobriety really be embraced by our society and our politicians?
Not by right-wing and far-right politicians who defend capitalist interests.The capitalist system cannot survive without constant growth.But society is much more ready than we imagine.In France, all experts were surprised by the sharp reduction in energy consumption during the 2022 Ukrainian crisis.

Do you think that nuclear supporters are gaining support in Europe?Do you see a growing parallel between political extremism, authoritarianism and nuclear energy?
Your question already contains the answer, and it's the right one.Nuclear energy can only work in a society where information is not fully free, where public debate is not clearly on the table, where political opponents are repressed.This is exactly what we are experiencing in France.More generally, the enormous structures of nuclear power plants and the centralized network necessarily impose a centralizing and authoritarian vision for their management, even if only for security reasons linked to the release of radioactivity or possible terrorist threats.On the contrary, the energy autonomy made possible by sobriety and renewable energy is compatible with a free society, in which citizens are directly involved in their own activities and in which there is much less need for state control.