Les perspectives de l'énergie nucléaire dans le cadre des changements climatiques

Electronuclear energy associated with hydrogen production can replace fossil fuels while emitting as few greenhouse gases as renewable energies. Besides waste management for which a solution has to be rapidly demonstrated, other key issues are to be examined to complete the demonstration of the viability of electronuclear energy. First, waste management and evolution of plutonium and its daughters must be considered together. A basic study has already been performed but what else to be done is huge and cannot be achieved in France (because of its geological and geographic features, because of the rural distribution of its population, etc.), except if a substantial and quite focused endeavour could bring concerned populations and workers, protection and confidence – which requires from the latter, represented by their elected representatives and thus by a public authority, that they work out “a general protection and confidence criterion for concerned populations and workers”. The unique solution in order to protect public health from a potential major danger is to bury as soon as possible all of the ultimate waste products, keeping in mind all of the unfavourable factors such as residual power of these products, their mobility in the confining geological beds and then through aquifers. There are so many categories of waste products whose treatment requires different durations, that storing is necessary in order to make them compatible after sorting by means of chemical separation (called reprocessing). Among all of these potential risks, the present-day most serious one, by far, is that of plutonium and its daughters, which are the most potentially radiotoxic. The unique solution consists in a separation of plutonium (and its daughters), followed by its fissions until a rather complete reduction in a product able to be buried after dilution in a matrix (for example, vitrification). But that solution faces serious handicaps. The examination of waste products and especially of the potentially most dangerous and difficult to treat, that is plutonium (and its daughters), leads thus necessarily to a ‘plutonium (and its daughters) plan’. Nuclear safety is a major preoccupation. The French electronuclear stock is a recognized success and when it will be necessary to replace the latter, it will be possible to use the European Pressurized Reactor French-German project; the latter includes protections against very unlikely events and its implementation would be a factor of substantial progress for nuclear safety. Radioprotection, as well as its scientific bases, epidemiology and radiobiology, have funding that is not at the level of the funding devoted to the technical and industrial realizations. As for proliferation, it can be noticed that the countries that have recently at their disposal nuclear weapons have done it independently of their eventual electronuclear stock and furthermore each of the latter used a different scientific and technical process. As for the eventual relations between reprocessing and proliferation, the problem should be solved if the total produced plutonium could be denatured in the reactors of the electronuclear stock. It must be noticed that the major potential danger would rather be the dispersion of radiotoxic products about which the department of ONU in charge of all of these questions is aware of increasing contraband from eastern Europe since some years.