PLEA FOR MORATORIUM FRENCH ATOMIC POWER PLAN PRODUCES MUCH OPPOSITION

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33814, 10 April 1975, Page 12

PLEA FOR MORATORIUM FRENCH ATOMIC POWER PLAN PRODUCES MUCH OPPOSITION

t By

RUPERT CORNWELL

in the "Financia! Times )

' Reprinie-d by arrangemery / "Rest assured," said the local priest to a worried lady parishioner who wondered whether nuclear reactors were the home of the Devi’. - ' the Holy Ghost was clever enough to make the Virgin Marx- conceive a j child, you may be certain that the Almighty has given an extra helping i of wisdom to the engineers of EdF."

I The worldly father in i question comes from the tiny Normandy village of Flamanville, which has just I had the mixed blessing of learning that it is on the | short list of sites chosen by ■Electricite de France for one | of the 40-odd nuclear reactors it plans to build in the country in the next few I years. An inconsequential place i— and yet Flamanville is a i perfect microcosm of the great debate now raging within France over the merits of the ambitious nuclear programme adopted by the Paris Government in the immediate aftermath of the joil crisis. I Almost, tn tact, too perIfect a microcosm, because so i divided is the community | that the mayor has called a I “consultation” (the word i “referendum” was bannd by Ithe local prefect) on April 6 ion whether the E.d.F. invitation should be accepted. (Whatever fate befalls the

planned power stations, it is • unimaginable that such an exercise be repeated at the I national level. The honeymoon between France and the atom has lasted just over a year. On 'March 6, 1974. the then' Prime Minister, Mr Pierre • Messmer, announced with .great fanfare a crash pro-! gramme of 13 power stations on which work would ; start in 1974 and 1975. Six i or seven more would be undertaken each year until [the end of this decade. , The press crowed, the ! Government spoke of a “historic opportunity," and the world rubbed its eyes for a [second and wondered if France had indeed solved Ithe energy crisis at a stroke. Indecent haste I The answer, it shortly beIcame apparent, was no. Now [the “national debate” urged [by President Giscard [d’Estaing is in full swing.! [The bland exponents of le’ jtout-nucleaire (all-nuclear)— [an unfortunate catchphrase! coined at the height .of! official ecstasy — are under, litre from ail sides, and the! union of France and nuclear energy is being revealed for: ’what it in fact was. a, marriage of convenience conitracted in indecent haste. The first tangible proof of 1 second thoughts came with al [restricted meeting in early! [February of top planners, [chaired by President Giscard' I himself. Obviously the con-| [ tracted 13 stations cannot’ [now be countermanded: on! | six of them site work has] [already begun. But for 19761 [and 1977 the more modest! [figure of 12 was adopted,; [while all decisions beyond: [that date have been put off. I ! Given a delay of at least! five years between bull-1 [dozing a site and linking a [Completed station to the nat-i itional power grid, the touted’ [figure of 50 in service by! [1985 looks highly improb-[ [ably — as does the vision! [(or nightmare) of no less! [than 200 stations bv the .turn of the century. Needless to sav, this first i ‘dent in the doctrine of official infallibility has been! .greeted with glee bv the opponents of all nuclear. But so far little has been done [to meet the other major: [complaint — that the tech-! [nocrats of E.d.F. and else-| where have made no effort’ Ito explain any of the econ-’ ; omic, ecological or security [questionmarks that hang’ [over the programme. As so often the impulse | came from the other side of Ithe Atlantic. Having made; [merry with the controversy! in the United States over! | the American programme j while ignoring French diffi[culties (“our prodigious national chauvinism” . . . wrote! ■ the distinguished “Le[ Monde” columnist Pierre i Vianson-Ponte), the media: suddenly woke up to the; fact that France indeed! (faced the same dilemma, but; • even more acutely. | Was the programme econ-j (omically correct? What' [would it do to the climate,’ ’ the landscape, the environlinent? Was there an alternative to the nuclear alternative? What about transport! [ risks, home-made atom ■ [bombs, reactor accidents?’ [Did France have full control over the P.W.R. and B.W.R.’ • stations it had ordered, the; • licences for which are held'

s by the Westinghouse and i General Electric companies i of the United States? And s the great debate got under t wav. > How conclusne it mil 1 prove is another matte: Ihe t‘“antis" are led bv the ><■ ‘ called "Group of Grenoble.' 1 consisting of 400 scientists ■ and economists. , Ihe State-controlled te e vision has made a noble stab ; at bringing the issue to the . people. But after a few moments of a recent broadcast, arguments between long : haired, bespectacled dons ■ and clinical dignitaries from ‘ E.d.F. descended irretriev- ‘ ably to such abstruse noI tions as roentgens tritium (and picocuries. That is surely not the [point. The essence of the nuclear debate is that there ar • so many unknowns, that, de ' finitive precedents can (rarely be invoked, and (those that are, are often dis- . [credited. The anti-nuclear ‘ lobby stresses that these ur -[certainties were simple •[ignored by the all-powerful ’officials who make decisions, •[sometimes, ii would appear. •' merely by marking Xs at -[their whim on a map of ■[France. II Moreover with the cost of ■’stations (now some $335 • million apiece) constantly (inflating, just how much i cheaper than oil will thee prove in the long run? The ,I conventional wisdom is that I even if qjl drops to $6 a ■i barrel, atomic poever will (still be economic, but at t!Grenoble they argue that for >1 certain major uses, le nucle >[aire will only be viable at lan oil price of $l9 or more :[ Also uncertain is the total (cost of the programme, in•eluding infrastructure like [high tension cables, safety [precautions and so forth i Though such guesses are [precarious, a German study (has put. the cost of a 50,000 [million programme at $4O [million — against French estimates of $l4 to $l9 milllion. . Few. not even the scientists from Grenoble, go so [far as to suggest that Franc [should abandon nuclear [energy completely for such exotic substitutes as geo ■ thermal or solar energy — at least in the medium term [But they, like the political [Left, plead that at least a [moratorium be granted so [that the country can weigh up more fully a problem which has profound implications for the future. Such may well be the outcome — and in the decision to leave the options for 1978 [and beyond open, the President has already edged in I that direction. But there are [other lessons too. ; Once more, France is guilty of counting its chicklens before they are hatched I — as was the case with the I fast dwindling $6 billion • Iranian “super-contract.” The [tendency is to assume that the stroke of the official pen [is immutable holy writ, in ignorance of the harsh real, •ties of the technological and •industrial world. ’ To the Flamanville priest, confident that the atom “like [everything else, is part of the Creation;” that might be iso. But an increasing num[ber of others, as the recent '.successful protest by envi- | ronmentalists over the jMarkolsheim chemical works [in Alsace indicates, feel •otherwise.