The Leibstadt nuclear power plant in Switzerland is one of the three still active in the country.
Keystone/ATS
Joining an ever longer list of countries, the Swiss government wants to ban the ban on producing nuclear energy in the name of clean energies. But resorting to it has often poorly evaluated risks, according to scientists.
The debate on the future of nuclear energy returns to the table in Switzerland. As a counter-project on the initiativeExternal link popular “electricity for everyone at any time (stop to blackout)”, the Federal Council opted at the end of 2024 for a change in the lawExternal link On nuclear energy in order to be able to raise the ban on building new power plants.
Coming into force as an extension of the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster (2011) in Japan, the ban of the atom had in fact bifted nuclear from the Swiss energy strategy. But the governmentExternal link Make a flip-flop and argues that this energy is necessary for a stable and long-term supply of electricity. The goal is to guarantee the energy security of tomorrow to deal with an increasing demand, while allowing the Confederation to achieve its climatic objectives.
According to the agencyExternal link International Energy (IEA), nuclear is experiencing a net of interest in the world today. More than forty countries have activated expansion plans in favor of this energy in order to triple the capacities by 2050 at the planetary level, and enter the nails of the objectives set in terms of CO2 emissions. According to the IAI, nuclear energy is, among low -emission sources, “one of the main sources of clean and safe electricity production after hydraulics”.
Few shows but far from clean
For Doug Brugge, biologist and public health professor at the University of Connecticut (United States), nuclear is indeed less polluting in terms of carbon dioxide emissions than electricity produced from coal or natural gas.
“But it is archi-purpose to assert that nuclear is a clean source,” he added immediately. With the engineer Aaron Datesman, he has just published «DirtyExternal link Secrets of Nuclear Power in an Era of Climate Change» (The dirty secrets of nuclear in the era of climate change), a book which aims to present, objectively, factually and in a accessible manner, the main risks. If Doug Brugge’s research focused above all on the effects of air pollution on health, it has been looking at the health consequences of uranium extraction, the heart of nuclear power for thirty years.
For having grown up in the Navajo Navajo reserve, in the southwest of the United States, where uranium was exploited between 1940 and 1980, it also made it a personal affair. In this region, many minors have died of lung cancer or pulmonary fibrosis. But none had been informed of the dangers of exposure to radiation. A large part of the radioactive materials which still rise to the surface contaminate land and waters. “The process of enriching uranium remains dirty and dangerous for workers and pollutes the soils and rivers of mining regions with doses of radioactivity,” he said.
He adds that “few people on the spot evoke this danger”, because the scourge mainly affects vulnerable and precarious communities, natives in remote areas. “A dirty problem concerning the working class. But people who claim that this energy is clean do not take into account this aspect of history. ”
A 1979 photo shows the cleaning efforts of an uranium extraction area located in a Navajo reserve in New Mexico (United States). The authorities asked the inhabitants to avoid river water because of its contamination.
AP1979
Exhibition throughout the channel
Nuclear engineer, the French researcher Bruno Chareyron also poses a critical look at the supposed “cleanliness” of this source of energy. Within the framework of the work he has carried out since 1993 on behalf of the Independent Research and Information Commission on Radioactivity (CRIIRAD), an independent radiation protection body created after the Chernobyl disaster, Bruno Chareyron was able to perform many measures in uranium extraction areas. Especially in trains and trucks carrying radioactive materials from or towards nuclear power plants. He also took the pulse of the rivers used to cool the reactors.
With his research group deployed in France, he also noted levels of influence in parking lots, roads, hiking trails and playgrounds. In other words, in places where radioactive residues have been used in building materials. Several times, the expert has thus calculated significant radiation levels, some exceeding legal limits, without anyone who has been officially informed. In his workExternal link recent entitled “Nuclear: a really safe energy?”it describes all the risks that weigh and prevent illusions that the technological progress linked to nuclear energy is shimmering.
“Official speech and reality are far away,” he says. He remembers that during his studies in nuclear and energy engineering, a very positive vision of technology had been presented to him at that time. But his work in the field for Criirad offered him another vision. It is the whole nuclear chain, from mining to enrich and use reactors, which, he says, says labor and populations at long-term radioactive risks. “The question of safety storage for thousands of years highly radioactive waste has still not been resolved and the risk of a major accident in a reactor is underestimated,” he says.
Plan according to an unstable climate
He also explains that the climate crisis would play today against nuclear energy, not the other way around. “Current power plants are not designed to resist extreme events due to climate change,” he alerts. To stop mergers like in Fukushima, reactors need a constant supply of electricity and water to guarantee cooling. In addition, the worn nuclear fuel should be able to be cooled for years.
The rise in water temperature, the drop in the level of rivers, floods and forest fires and storms could compromise the safety of these reactors. “The risk of an accident increases with climate change,” he punctuates.
Expert in ecological security at the Institut Council on Strategic Risks which is based in the United States, Andrea Rezzonico has been studying interdependencies between climate change, nuclear developments and global security for seven years.
“Already at the time, many states considered nuclear as a means of achieving the climatic objectives of the Paris Agreement. We wanted to understand how these changes were going to affect nuclear infrastructure in the future, ”she recalls.
“Nuclear energy can participate in protecting the climate in the long term, but faster responses are necessary in the short term,” she judges. She points out that the already existing reactors must take into account different climatic scenarios and other extreme events to avoid incidents.
“Many reactors have been built at a time when climatic forecasts as we are announced to us are not yet a factor in itself,” she said. Its analyzes demonstrate that the reactors located today near the coasts live under the threat of a potential rise in sea level as well as the waves caused by storms.
“In Switzerland and Europe, droughts, the drop in the level of rivers and warming water temperature are the most important challenges. The availability of cooling water will become a critical factor. We might have to respond to the following choice: use water to cool the reactors or for agriculture? Since this water will be much warmer, a problem will arise when cooling and rejection of water in the ecosystem ”.
The human factor is essential
Professor Emeritus in applied psychology at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, Rhona Flin believes that in Switzerland, while the nuclear debate is in full swing, the emphasis should not only be placed on CO2 and technology emissions. “The human factor is crucial for the safe exploitation of a power plant,” she recalls.
It has long studied interactions between security, governance and human behavior within the framework of high -risk industries (nuclear energy, aviation, petroleum industry). Rhona Flin has also developed with others a European training program on the culture of nuclear security intended primarily for business managers and authorities responsible for regulating. According to her, countries that come out of nuclear power must be able to count again and again on professional staff.
“The commitment of highly qualified persons will be necessary for decades to ensure the operation under surveillance of active reactors, their dismantling and waste management”. If the arrival of new technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics opens up perspectives, they also bring new risks. “We have to learn how humans and machines work effectively together. And what impact can have the failure of the machines. “
But technical expertise alone is no longer enough. Other skills are required today (communication, teamwork, pressure decision -making). A work culture where staff can openly mention the risks is requested.
“The staff must feel comfortable talking about their concerns and problems, even their superiors. And business leaders must listen to and act in office, ”says Rhona Flin. To hear it, this culture is today essential for a safe exploitation of nuclear power plants. Whether Switzerland decides to build new reactors or that it is confined to its program to leave the atom.
Plus
See the discussion
Translated from English by Alain Meyer/Ptur
