A natural cataclysm is not required for a nuclear disaster on the scale of Fukushima to occur (“Pools full of danger,” 20-27 April) . Thus, in 2006 a fire almost caused a reactor at Ringhals in Sweden to lose control. A storm in 1999 caused a similar incident at three reactors in Blayais, near Bordeaux. In 2007, a fire stopped the plant of Krümmel near Hamburg for two years, before a short circuit put it out of operation. A human error or a terrorist attack would also suffice.  

This nuclear roulette is multiplied by the number of reactors and waste storage. There is no need to accept such a situation, since alternatives exist. Moreover, those alternatives are less costly.

Above all, a good energy-saving plan could, without affecting comfort, reduce European electricity consumption by at least 10% by 2016, the equivalent of 40 nuclear reactors. The European Commission calculates that energy-saving potential – known as negaWatts – amounts to nearly 30%, as several countries, including France, make excessive use of electric heating, a form of heating in which 70% of energy is lost.

Moreover, the electricity system currently has surplus capacity that, if used, would make it possible to close the oldest nuclear plants, such as the seven temporarily suspended German plants, Fessenheim in France and Garoña in Spain (a plant that is identical to reactor number one at Fukushima).

There is clearly also great potential to make more use of renewable energy. Renewable sources currently generate 18% of electricity in Europe; in Spain the figure is 35% and in Austria it is 65%. Such a shift would also increase employment: according to the Commission, renewables create up to seven times more jobs than other energy sources.

Despite the short-term interests of the nuclear lobby, a safer and more sustainable model must be pursued in the interests of future generations, so that we can phase out nuclear power, as Germany and Belgium intend to do.

Emmanuel Bergasse

Energy consultant

Vic Fezensac, France