Skip to main content

The Sarkozy Letter to EFN

With the French presidential election over, the task of governing is now on the shoulders of the newly-elected President, Nicolas Sarkozy. And when it comes to energy security, it seems as if he appreciates the role nuclear energy plays both in France and around the world.

Why do I say that? Back in April 2006, Bruno Comby, President of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, sent a questionnaire to all 12 candidates for President, and the most positive response was received back from the Sarkozy campaign.

The following is an excerpt from an English translation of the response that Sarkozy's campaign sent to EFN:
I am perfectly aware of the fact that renewable energies, in their present state of development, cannot seriously hope to replace nuclear energy.

[...]

We should obviously continue to support the development of renewable energies; but at least for the medium term they will be nothing more than a rather small contribution to our energy supply. And I can not accept the idea of replacing nuclear power stations by coal or gas. Let me repeat that my priority is to counter climate change.

More exactly, you are asking me the orientations of the energy policy which I would like to see implemented. Let me give you a precise answer.

You know that nuclear energy provides 80% of the electricity in France. That largely explains why France emits 18% less greenhouse gas per inhabitant than the average of the European Union countries. If our nuclear power plants were to be replaced tomorrow by coal plants, our greenhouse gas emissions would rise by 25%.
Renewable energies are one solution, but they would not be able to satisfy the entire energy needs of France. We must keep all our options open for replacing our present fleet of nuclear power plants starting about 2015, beginning with the construction of the EPR to come on line in 2012. In terms of safety (prevention of accidents) and for the protection of the environment against waste, it is my position that the EPR reactor represents a great step forward.

It is clear that we must at the same time reassure all our citizens who expect to be better informed about the disposal of nuclear waste and more closely associated with decisions concerning nuclear waste. I propose therefore to create an independent agency which would guarantee that nuclear energy is properly dealt with. This agency would have a "freedom of information" mission, sorting out those documents which can be communicated to the citizens from those which cannot, for obvious reasons of national security.

In any event, taking in consideration the many benefits of this source of energy, I do not contemplate any rapid abandonment of nuclear power. I cannot forget that nuclear energy contributes in a decisive manner to the three objectives of our energy policy as defined in the French law: to guarantee national independence in energy and the security of supply; to take action against the greenhouse effect; and to make sure that the price of electricity remains competitive and stable.

Now to answer your questions about the development of civilian nuclear power world-wide, I am favorable to this development, with the obvious rule that we collaborate only with democratic governments and under strictly administered conditions. This kind of partnership backed by the strength of the French nuclear industry implies to maintain the leadership in this domain of our French nuclear constructor (AREVA) and our French nuclear utility (EDF). The construction of the first EPR reactor will help us keep our leadership.
For the full text of the questionnaire and the responses in French, click here.

Comments

Nikopol said…
fbrgjWho wants to know what thinks the Socialist Party about those questions ?

The answer in 2012 ? (next elections)

Read also in french the EFN's blog about nuclear news :

http://www.aepn.blogspot.com

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…