"The morning on France Culture 7/9, with Guillaume Erner."
-Good morning Jean-Marc Jancovici!
-Good morning.
-You're an energy specialist, president of the think thank 'The Shift Project', professor at Mines ParisTech, and I invited you because energy is in the news, two examples:
Donald Trump congratulated himself on the official withdrawal of his country from the Paris Agreement, and sang the praise of the clean american coal,
and one week earlier the french nuclear industry got the finger pointed at it with a blaming report on the difficulties of the construction site of the EPR in Flamanville,
while Emmanuel Macron promised that nuclear part would be lowered to 50% in electricity production by 2035.
And I know you don't really want to talk about nuclear, you said you didn't want to talk about it more than 20% of the broadcast, can you explain why?
-I didn't say I didn't want to talk about nuclear, I said I didn't want to only talk about it.
There's a running joke in places working on energy, it's that nuclear is 5% of problems and 95% of discussions. There.
We don't have only that problem about energy. First, we need to remind something about energy, it's that energy is not a sector separated from others, it's what allows the modern world to exist.
Without energy, you don't present the morning broadcast, you grow potatoes, which is a life a little bit different.
People who listen to us don't have homes protected from cold or heat, they don't have cars, they don't have meat on every meal. All we have in the modern world, purchasing power and pensions, energy allowed it.
So discussing about energy is discussing on everything around us today, the main thing that allows that worldwide isn't the nuclear but fossil fuels, meaning oil, coal and gas.
In France, 2/3 of our CO2 emissions, meaning what induces climate change come from oil, 1/4 from gas, 5% from coal, and 0% from nuclear.
I agree that nuclear does have some drawbacks, but talking only about nuclear is something that ends up being a bit counterproductive.
Besides, as far as Emmanuel Macron's decision is concerned, I still don't understand it, I mean I didn't understand Holland's decision, I don't think that capping nuclear at 50% is a good idea,
I think that it's squandering funds in things that are of no interest, however I...
-Perhaps it's politics?
-And politics should do things that are of no interest?
-No, but politics want to do things that people would like them to do...
-No no no no, Holland did that because he wanted the 3% of ecologist votes
that enabled him to win the election, it's not...
-This is called politics!
-No, because what 3% of people want is not what the collectivity wants,
so when you say it's what people want, it depends on who.
-Well, I have a report from Jean-Martin Folz (-I read it...) about the construction of the EPR in Flamanville explaining that... I'll be brief...
-His report is thicker than that.
-Anyway, it brings up €10 billion of exceeding budget, a delay...
I was about to say a 10 years delay, I should say more because one doesn't know when this EPR will enter service,
this report highlights that the nuclear of the future has some troubles ahead...
-No, french nuclear has troubles ahead. Chinese have many working reactors that have been constructed in 5 years. Even the EPRs...
-One doesn't know in which conditions.
-Who?
-Chinese.
-Well, you don't know in which conditions!
-Absolutely, the french Nuclear Safety Authority doesn't know in which conditions.
-I don't know. I don't know if you've read...
-I know it.
-You read all the reports of the ASN?
-No I haven't read all the reports, but I did a broadcast on that topic, and one of the experts said that one doesn't know...
-So one of the experts doesn't know. Alright.
-He didn't know in which measures the Nuclear Safety Authority...
-We're accustomed to say that "One is no one." When you say "one doesn't know", it doesn't say who.
-Wait, let's just explain to the audience what this is about.
The EPR in Flamanville suffers from a number of problems, including a lid problem. I'll say it with my words, and you'll say it with the experts' words.
Its lid is not reliable and one considered that it couldn't work with this lid. In China, the EPR works and one doesn't know...
I say "one", the word is inadequate, but let's say that the Nuclear Safety Authority doesn't know in which measure this lid is identical to what it should have been in France, and so maladjusted to safety.
-Let's start back from the beginning.
There have been today 3 serious nuclear power plant accidents worldwide. 2 of them did 0 casualty. Three Mile Island and Fukushima did 0 casualty as far as nuclear is concerned.
The only accident that did casualties is Chernobyl, and it happened on a reactor whose model doesn't exist in France or in China.
And each accident is specific. You can't have any kind of accident in any kind of power plant.
The zero-risk doesn't exist anywhere in the world, and the question of safety about nuclear is up until which point do we add billions euros to shelter us from a surplus of risks,
when those billions used elsewhere could avert suffering to people. It's a question of arbitration.
Again, the zero-risk doesn't exist anywhere. What Jean-Martin Folz's report says is that french industry lost skills,
he doesn't say that there's a safety problem, especially because it's not his domain, we have a safety authority for that, it's not Folz's job...
-Anyway, the EPR doesn't work for now, so we don't have problems.
-The EPR works well, there are 2 of them in China...
-I'm talking about the EPR in Flamanville.
-Let's be accurate then: the EPR in Flamanville is not in service.
Chinese EPRs works well, they're in commercial service at full output power, they've been built with both calendar excess and overbudgets but it's usual for serial starts.
The Eiffel Tower has been built with 3 times it's initial budget, Eurotunnel with 5 times its initial budget,
and the exploitation of the Kashagan oil field in the northern Caspian Sea has been built for 10 times its initial budget, so exceeding budgets are not something hazardous.
The Eiffel Tower is not dangerous, tourists going up there every day don't die just because it's been built for 3 times the initial budget. So let's separate hazards from overcosts, we're not talking about the same thing.
Folz pointed out the overcost and said that this overcost in such proportions was abnormal, and I totally agree whith him, the question is why this overcost happened, and Folz basically hits on everybody.
He hits on the people who built the plant, because he considered that those people got too confident, while they needed to get the hang of it back. Basically, the initial budget was a fantasy, the initial timing was also a fantasy.
Now the good question is why did the french nuclear industry lose skills. It lost skills first because they have not built anything over the past 20 years,
and second mostly because it has been a hostage for 15 years of short-term politician schemes and when during 15 years political powers
tell you off the record that you're doing really good while on the record they tell that you're doing crap, at one point it poses some turmoils in the industry management.
And Folz also says that between the lines.
-There's still nowadays some worries towards the nuclear, you said that Fukushima didn't kill anybody,
can we be certain of that on the mid-term, will cancers on the site or sites that are uninhabitable...
-Do you know who is the employee the most irradiated in France?
-No, I don't know.
-Yes you do, you do know his name.
-His name is Thomas Pesquet.
-Why the poker face, his name is Thomas Pesquet. 
-I trust you!
-When you go in space, you sustain some cosmic rays that are a kind of ionizing radiations, with high velocity particles,
and Thomas Pesquet endures over the 6 months he spend in the ISS around 9 times the  maximum permissible dose allowed for a nuclear employee in France. He's still alive.
The first category of employees the most irradiated in this country is perhaps some medical professions with surgeons operating in close proximity of medical imaging devices,
but one in particular is more irradiated than nuclear employees, it's the employees of aerial transport, for the same reasons,
because they're more exposed to cosmic rays when they travel 30 000 feet high, and so more irradiated on average than employees of the nuclear industry.
So not everobody die as soon as they're exposed to ionizing radiations...
-According to you, Fukushima won't...
-Not according to me. Perhaps you've heard about the IPCC? It rings a bell, right.
The IPCC is a United Nations agency whose responsibility is to compile and synthetize the available scientific litterature about the impact of mankind on climate.
It so happens that the United Nations have created 1955, 33 years before the IPCC, another UN agency called, with a deliberate french accent, UNSCEAR
standing for United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, whose reports are wonderfully ignored by french media.
So that's a good question: why do french media ignore those reports?
-I'm going to ask you this question!
-I don't have the answer, you do!
-I don't work in the french media. These reports compile the available scientific litterature about the effects of ionizing radiations on humans.
You undergo ionizing radiations everyday, because of cosmic rays, telluric rays, radiology and medical imaging devices,
and the question is not if you'll die if you take some, the answer is no, the question is up until which dose is it possible to go before the turmoils start.
There have been studies on the topic for a very long time, we do know that Marie Curie died because of that, and in 1928 a commission for protection against ionizing radiations had already been created.
So there's a century of scientific litterature on the subject.
And the UNSCEAR released reports of 400 pages, in english, that nobody read, on both Chernobyl and Fukushima, and Fukushima report's conclusion...
-About Chernobyl, we can agree on the fact that there have been casualties? The radiation sickness induced casualties...
-Of course, I can tell you the content of these reports, so you can check them out.
As far as Fukushima is concerned, the report says that there won't be any casualty because of the surplus of radiations.
It's very explicit.
-I believe you, however...
-Don't believe me, believe people...
-You know, the difficulties as journalist is that we question experts, so you're an expert and I trust you, you're here to develop your thoughts.
However I remember, as journalist, the Fukushima catastrophe. Back then, we were said that it wasn't possible in France. Because the risk of tsunamis...
-I don't know who said that to you, a tsunami in France isn't possible.
-There. We agree on that.
-A core meltdown in France is possible.
And should it happen, it'll probably do the same thing as Fukushima,
where the molten core remained within the plant and there'll be no consequence on the outside, exactly as it happened for Three Mile Island.
-But for Three Mile Island, the core was just an inch away from...
-I don't know.
The core melted and remained within. Period. It wasn't an inch away from melting, it did melt.
-One of the questions about the EPR is that it's been presented as an extremely safe system, with a core...
-No need to go up to the EPR, current reactors are designed in France so that if it melts, it stays inside.
-Can we say today, without risk, that the core won't pierce...
-Zero risk doesn't exist. However, what is a shame today is that public understanding of nuclear risk is completely wrong.
I'll give you a first example of fake news, because it is, 80% of french people think that nuclear contributes to climate change.
It can have all the drawbacks in the world, but not that one.
When you do surveys in France, nuclear wastes frighten peole more than, wait for it, road accidents, home accidents, home accidents represent 20 000 casualties per year. Nuclear wastes, 0.
It frightens more than obesity with young people, it's as frightening as smoking, so there's a kind of fantasized fear in the public opinion
and it's the reason why upon entering this studio, I said I didn't want to talk only about it because the problem of nuclear isn't a problem of objective hazards,
it's a problem of felt risks, so the real debate on nuclear is why are media so incapable to give a factual and objective information, because there are facts and opinions. Alright?
-Not only media, experts also. For example, the report...
-Who asked me to come into this studio? You did, I didn't walk by and came in because the light was on...
-I invited you so you can give us your point of view!
-So you also invited the others!
-Jean-Martin Folz's report on the EPR in Flamanville contains a word incomprehensible at first glance for the public: scratched folder.
What does that mean? It means that in the EPR in Flamanville some parts have been declared improper for nuclear use.
It's done by experts, meaning people who know their job, who say they do, people who do what's best for us so they say,
and in that nuclear plant there are parts that apparently are improper, the way people would mount brake pads that don't brake.
-No, the comparison is wrong. There's an authority that says if it's possible or not to put that part in the reactor called the ASN.
The Nuclear Safety Authority looks at things in detail and says we can or we can't.
If you have a brake pad on your car whose standard is to be 3 centimeters thick, but it's only 2.8 cm thick. Except, it becomes dangerous if it's thinner than 0.5 cm.
Then, it's non compliant but it's not dangerous. The ASN is here to say if it's dangerous or not, independently from the compliance. It's its job.
If the ASN doesn't tell you not to put the part, it's that the part could be non compliant to the specification and yet, the specification have a so wide tolerance margin that it's not dangerous.
It's not my job and it's not yours, so I'm incapable to say whether or not that part had to be put in the reactor, all I'm saying is the ASN gave it a go.
-Jean-Marc Jancovici, I have a last question on the nuclear. We saw that there were a certain number of risks, you consider that media don't do their job by fueling the fear of people,
in India a new risk has been observed for the indian nuclear safety authorities acknowledged that a computer virus had been detected in a power plant
in the state of Tamil Nadu, is that a new risk, is that something we planned?
-I don't have any idea, because you know, we have a problem in the modern world, not only about nuclear.
The world has become so complicated that nobody can by himself understand and masterize all the techologies surrounding us.
So you have no choice left but to trust third parties. You and me.
-This is why I invite experts...
-Can I finish?
I'm an expert, alright, but not to the point where I know what virus this is about, is it real or a fantasy, an urban legend or something solid, there. So at this stage, I don't know.
-But that means...
-If you ask me if I'm very worried, I'll answer no.
I'm not very worried with this information, there can be computer viruses in air traffic control towers with aircrafts crashing down...
-There can be aircrafts crashing down on nuclear reactors?
-Yeah... Again, it's better for the plane to crash into an office tower in La Défense if you want to have many casualties. It'll be far more efficient.
-Why, you're sure that today's nuclear reactors...
-Because should an aircraft crash onto a nuclear reactor, you'll perhaps, and I emphasize on perhaps, have a leak of nuclear material that won't do 2000 instant casualties.
While if the aircraft crashes into an office tower in La Défense, we saw what happened in Manhattan, it works really well, you do a few thousands instant casualties.
If I had to do that many casualties, I'd prefer to crash into a tower rather than a nuclear power plant.
-Jean-Marc Jancovici, we'll keep talking about energy, we won't talk about nuclear, I remind people that you're the president of the think tank 'The Shift Project' and professor at Mines ParisTech,
we meet back in a few minutes to talk about coal, as Donald Trump congratulated himself on monday...
-It's better to talk about oil in France, because we don't have that much coal.
-Well. We'll talk about it, at around 8.20. In the meantime it's 8 o'clock, I wish you an excellent morning.
"7/9, the morning on France Culture, with Guillaume Erner."
-Back on the field of energy, we're with Jean-Marc Jancovici, president of the think tank 'The Shift Project' and professor at Mines ParisTech,
a few moments ago you rose the question of the nuclear risk to say that this one was limited to you, there wasn't really reason to be worried,
does Donald Trump's decision to bring back coal, to sing the praise of, I quote Donald Trump's words, "the magnificent clean american coal", does that worry you more Jean-Marc Jancovici?
-What you need to know is that United States is the most parliamentary system in the world in democracies, and that executive has very little power.
Most of the power in United States belong to the Congress, to federated states, what the President does can have some influence in some particular domains
but a domain where the President doesn't have any power is coal price versus gas price.
The U.S. has the largest coal deposits in the world, so it potentially has the ability to release lots and lots of carbon dioxyde in the atmosphere with that coal.
Besides, coal is mainly a domestic energy, less than 10% of steam coal, that is used to produce electricity, cross a border between the country of extraction and the country of consumption. This energy doesn't travel a lot.
So the U.S. has a lot of coal, but it so happens that over the past 10 years, the part of coal in their electric production, because this is what coal is mainly used for,
is dropping in favor of gas because with the source rock gas, refered to in France as shale gas, gas price in the U.S. is extremely low for a decade or so, and it's more profitable to make electricity with gas rather than coal.
Coal is stalling in the U.S., and Trump's gesturings about coal are here only to reassure his voters in coal states,
but Trump has no influence whatsoever on what's happening with coal.
-But should it frighten us, does the fact of using coal rather than shale gas, does that represent a risk to you?
-It depends on what you call a risk. Climate change is a risk.
To give you an idea, it's necessary to know that the difference of average temperature between the latest ice age,
where France looked like the current northern Siberia and the pre-industrial world that we entered in a century and a half ago,
the raise of the average temperature has only been 5°C. So with +5°C on the average temperature, you turn a France that looked like the current northern Siberia into what we know today.
Ocean's level rose by 120 meters with +5°C. So it's necessary to figure out that climate change has the potential to kill billions of people, I emphasize on on billions,
and it has the potential to bring war everywhere on Earth.
The IPCC, in a report released not so long ago, said that from +3°C of raise of the average temperature there'll be a global alimentary insecurity.
And alimentary insecurity brings politics insecurity, everywhere, you know the saying "Hungry bellies have no ears" and there are thousands of examples on Earth of what I just said.
Climate change has the potential to make your children's life, I don't know if you've some, particularly rude.
So everything that contributes to raise CO2 emissions has the potential to contribute to make people's life particularly rude.
The fact to consume more coal contributes to it, however the fact to replace coal by gas, at constant consumption I insist, lowers CO2 emissions.
The great paradox of what's happening in the U.S. is that the drilling for source rock gas that everybody considers to be an environmental catastrophe is a rather good bargain as far as CO2 goes.
-The problem is, as you said, this has other counterparts, what do you think about them?
-What other counterparts?
-Well, for example, pollutions generated by shale gas.
-What pollution?
-Different kind of pollutions, in regards to what is injected into the ground to extract shale gas..
-That is not a very bothering pollution, what is injected to extract the gas is mainly water with additives
like swimming pool bleach, dishwashing products, gelling products as found in cosmetics...
-Small earthquakes induced by shale gas?
-About earthquakes, there's one that's induced by gas that is not shale gas and that is funnier, it's also a small earthquake...
-It's safe, according to you?
-Regarding what I just spoke of, yes it's totally secondary, with regards to the 5 million people dying every year from road accidents it's totally secondary,
and with regards to people dying each year from tobacco and alcohol it's totally secondary, so...
-We can't avail ourselves of tobacco casualties to validate shale gas, can we?
-We can avail ourselves of the fact that when there's only 24 hours a day and when one has the budget one has, one chooses one's priority.
We can't solve all the problems at the same time, so a good approach to manage our priorities is to consider that if we tackle only one problem, which one is it?
Then if I tackle a second one, which one is it? And so on.
About earthquakes... Shale gas has a lot of drawbacks, but earthquakes induced by shale gas are not something that...
You know, geothermal energy which is a renewable energy also induces earthquakes when you set up a facility. Small ones.
-To extract shale gas, it requires lots of trucks because it needs lots of water...
-That's is a real drawback...
...but I'm not telling you that shale gas is a wonder, I'm just saying that one of the paradoxal effects of the development of shale gas in the U.S.
is that it contributed to lower the country's CO2 emissions. Just that. That's a fact.
-If you had to draw the ideal energy mix, Jean-Marc Jancovici, what would you propose.
-Let's take the problem the other way around.
If we want to stay below the 2°C that are in everyone's minds as far as climate change in the future goes, it's necessary for global CO2 emissions to drop by 4% per year, starting tomorrow morning.
It means that the amount of oil, gas and coal we use drops by 4% per year.
Now you can make some arbitration, if you replace coal with gas it gives you some time, meaning you keep as much energy and modern world, while lowering CO2 emissions.
But overall, it needs to drop by 4% per year. In all that, neither renewable energies, nor nuclear will be enough to compensate this decrease to keep modern comfort.
So it's necessary to understand that fighting climate change is going on a diet.
-Alright. That's a start. So if I follow you, a diet of 4% per year?
-A tough diet that won't spare even people considered as modest. A tough diet.
The dirty political secret of our time, because economists use completely outdated models to say that both are compatible, is that's not compatible with the economic growth,
it's even not compatible with maintaining the current economic prodution level.
It means loss of purchasing power to be clear. For everybody, not just rich people.
-What do you mean, a loss of purchasing power? A lowering..
-Because going on a diet, it's to lose purchasing power.
-Can't it be through a better insulation of homes...
-Yes, but also through less habitable space per person, less mechanized means of motion per person, less clothes and stuff purchased per person, and so on.
-So once we laid all that...
-So once we laid all that, we understand that nuclear we talked a lot in that first part is like a spare parachute.
If we don't use some, the energy decrease is quicker than if we use it, and at that point the social collapse is even quicker. Now, let's pick sides.
I think that risks bore by that are very important. About eolian and solar...
You know that windmills have been known for two thousand years. It so happens that historically, we moved from windmills to fossil fuels.
So if windmills were so marvelous, flawless and cheap, why did we bother to move to oil?
-Perhaps because we better know the wind nowadays?
-No, because wind was well-known two thousand years ago, and because wind being an energy superior to oil is wrong.
As long as there's no problem with the amount of extractible oil, and as long as there's no problem with climate change, oil is far better than wind.
-But as we have a problem with oil, can't we...
-Yes, but at that point we'll regress, so to speak, because wind is a diffuse energy, extracting energy from wind requires far heavier means than extracting oil from an oil field,
for instance it requires 100 times more metal to have a complete energy system where the 8 o'clock train leaves at 8 o'clock, not when there's some wind.
To have a complete driveable system, it requires 100 times more metal to have eolian and solar than having a system based on classical power plants that we have today.
-We agree on the fact that eolian has flexibility problems...
-No no, it suffers from a material requirement problem. I mean, as the wind energy is diffuse in the first place, it requires big installations to extract big amounts of energy.
-It has a certain numbers of flaws, but today the price of the kilowatt hour ...
-We don't call that flaws, we call that physic weaknesses.
-I just finish... That the price of the kilowatt hour provided by wind turbines is the same as nuclear if we integrate all nuclear's costs...
-No, because you don't integrate all eolian costs in that scenario. 
-Did you integrate all nuclear's costs including the dismantling of plants?
-Yes. Dismantling costs about 10% of the construction's cost. It's not very expensive, it's all about going in with power saws and cut everything down.
-Are you sure it's that cheap?
-I'm totally sure, yes.
Around 10%. 15% if you want extra security for irrational fears.
There are a lot of power plants worldwide that have been brought down the the ground, there is feedback.
You have around two dozen of installations currently being dismantled in France. Graphite-gas installations are being dismantled, research reactors are being dismantled,
Superphenix's little brother or sister, called Phenix, which worked very well for 30 years in Marcoule is being dismantled, there is no major problem. It requires some precautions, but there is no major problem.
Back on what I was saying on wind turbines, the cost of the megawatt hour announced as low is a cost where the 8 o'clock train leaves only if there's some wind.
-Which means that wind turbines can't be the only part of the energy mix.
-Which means that about wind turbines, to compare what can be compared, we need to compare the costs of driveable systems.
In a hydroelectric dam, you turn the tap, you have electricity. In a nuclear power plant, you turn the tap, you have electricity. In a gas power plant, you turn the tap, you have electricity.
With wind turbines, you don't turn your tap, you wait for some wind. If you want electricity when you turn the tap, it requires to add to wind turbines the storage system to be sure that the 8 o'clock train leaves at 8 o'clock.
-And only then...
-So, batteries?
-No, today the most common systems used to store electricity are reversible dams called pumping stations.
-Batteries...
-They pose an ecologic problem.
-They pose an ecologic problem because it requires to build the dams, but batteries pose an ecologic problem because making a battery is metallurgy, and you need some mines.
There's no such thing as energy without counterpart. You need to choose the counterparts.
However, what is sure is that with all the metal needed to have batteries everywhere and wind turbines everywhere, you and your children will be dead and we still won't be out of the woods.
So the question of having a complete electric system with batteries and wind turbines, when you look at the global cost of that package, what I did,
it costs on overall 10 times more than a nuclear system, even an expensive one. Because wind turbines are not a complete system, but a partial one.
-Have you considered all costs, including the cost of a low-probability but real possibility of what happened in Fukushima and that must be considered in costs?
-Yes, because you have...
-That's a region made uninhabitable...
-No, the region has not been made uninhabitable in Fukushima.
-Do you want to go to live in Fukushima?
-I'd prefer... Without hesitation, if I'm given the choice between living in Fukushima and living near a chemical plant, a motorway or a coal power plant, I'm going to live in Fukushima in a heartbeat.
-Why? Do you prefer a risk low but serious...
-No, the risk is not low but serious, I repeat what I said earlier: UNSCEAR's reports say that there are no risk because of the radiation surplus.
-I'm sorry, I don't uderstand what that means...
-Because you listen to your journalist friends instead of listening to...
-I'm a journalist myself, and I have journalist friends, and also expert friends, who explained me that radiation sickness is a thing.
-So they're not expert. You invite them but they're not expert.
-For example, Chernobyl...
-Have a physician in.
Invite the head of the nuclear medicine department of La Pitié-Salpêtrière. I can give you his coordinates, and he'll explain you. He is an expert.
-I'm here to hear you anyway...
-Invite a medicine doctor, why does radio never invite medicine doctor?
-We invite all kind of people.
-No, you invite association members, you invite people like me, you don't invite doctor. Invite a medicine doctor.
-We invite people to charge and discharge. People for the nuclear. You know I don't really have an opinion, I listen to experts.
-You know, there are facts and opinions. As far as facts go, like for instance that Earth is a globe, there's no people to charge and discharge.
You can if you want invite people who say that Earth is flat, but I don't think it'll improve the understanding of the world for people listening to you.
An expert about the impact of ionizing radiations on health is called a physician. These people should be invited in.
You've people working on nuclear medicine in that country, these people should be invited in.
-You're perfectly entitled to defend the nuclear, it's your right.
-I'm not defending the nuclear...
-Yes you do.
-No no no no, I'm standing for something far deeper than that, I'm defending what makes the legitimacy of an expert. This is what I stand for.
-The problem is, it requires an expert to find out what an expert is.
-An expert is never self-proclaimed. There's no such thing.
An expert is considered as such when he has an ability acknowledged by his peers,
and when he has published in scientific peer-reviewed journals some conclusions, theories or demonstrations that have not been invalidated through the same channel.
That's what an expert is.
-But there should be experts in terror to assess for instance the global anxiety with Fukushima, you say there won't be any fallout, Chernobyl...
-Do you know what the anxiety of Americans has been with Orson Welles  who made them believe about an alien invasion? It also has been high. So, it's not because you make people believe...
-A media terror, Fukushima wasn't a media terror.
-Of course it was, your colleagues at France Info even dared to assert that Fukushima itself did 20 000 casualties. I can find the record if you want.
-My colleages and friends at France Info did, but what's sure...
-With such crap, people end up believing it.
-Three weeks ago, one explained that Fukushime was releasing nuclear wastes, radioactive water in the sea...
-Everything's radioactive! Do you know what the radioactivity of your own body is?
7000 Becquerels. 7000! Three zeros! Do you know what a becq...
-Jean-Marc Jancovici, the radiation sickness is a thing!
-What do you call radiation sickness?
-Well, those people who died from cancer because they went to Chernobyl to intervene on the core, to build the sarcophagus.
-For Chernobyl, UNSCEAR's reports say that Chernobyl's proven consequences are a few dozen of short-term casualties,
meaning people who indeed went to throw the first sand bags on the molten core, most of them died, but there are 50 of them, not 5000.
And then, you have a few thousand, around 6000, cases of thyroid cancers for children at the time of the accident, I insist on children,
there is no variation witnessed about thyroid cancers for adults, because adults' thyroid have stopped stacking up iodine. And for everything else, there is no noticeable consequence. This is what's written.
-That must be, if I'm correct, around 10 000 victims?
-No, 6000 victims, and with those victims you'll have, and once again have a physician in who'll talk to you about that. It so happens that...
-We've had all these people in, but you see...
-I don't know, I'm not sure you invited physicians in. At least I haven't heard any of these specialists about that topic on the radio, no.
-I promise you I'll invite one of them.
-I've heard Rivasi, Lepage and Jadot as much as you want, but a physician, never.
-That's a wrong trial in my opinion, because the nuclear lobby...
-I'm not doing a trial, 
-You belong to the nuclear lobby...
-I'm not doing a trial, I just notice a fact, which is that if we review the accurate listing of guests who sat to that microphone and your colleagues', there has almost never been...
-I don't have the figures, so we can't debate about this, but one thing is certain: what happened in Fukushima and Chernobyl can't be considered as an adventure, and so we can...
-This is not what I'm saying. Do you know what is the electricity production facility accident that did the most casualties worldwide?
-Each time I ask you a question, you answer with another question. I know that scheme, but it means that...
-I'm not doing Rabbi Jacob all over again here, I'm asking a real question.
Dams killed the most people in the world, by far. The accident that happened to the dam of Longarone, Italia, in the 50s did 2500 casualties.
In France, if a nuclear power plant employee drops a hammer on his foot, it makes it to the front page of every newspaper.
So I assure you, we're focused on that topic because it's a passionate topic, easy for the buzz, it's not educating people properly...
-There's also Nicholas Taleb, philosopher and essayist, who raised the notion of black swan, because soon...
-Wait a minute, right now we have another huge black swan on top of us called climate change, and we don't care about it!
-But didn't you consider that we are going to care about climate change with nuclear and shale gas?
-I consider that if we don't go nuclear, we increase the risk overall.
-No, you consider that there's no alternative...
-No, it's not what I told you. See? You're like all your friends. I told that the first thing to do is to go on a diet. I didn't tell that...
-That's right, you told so.
-There's a proof, an audio recording from 5 minutes ago, so you've a short memory.
-No I don't have a short memory because...
-Yes you do.
-...you also explained that about shale gas... I don't know if you like paradox, but I heard that...
-It's not about paradox, I explained that shale gas had one characteristic, I emphasize on 'one characteristic', I'm not saying it's a wonder. It has one characteristic: it contributed to decrease United States' CO2 emissions.
That's a fact. That's all. Now, it's possible to be for or against it. It's another matter.
I'm just saying it contributed to that, because it removed some coal from their electricity production. Germans with their wind turbines removed far less coal from their electricity production than Americans with their shale gas.
There. It's a fact. Now, it's possible to debate on how to interprete that fact, what lessons can we learn, how many steps back can we take on that situation, and so on.
It's totally possible to discuss about that. But that's a fact.
-What about photovoltaics? We haven't talked much on that.
-Your children will be dead and the planet's situation won't have changed.
-So it means that, according to you, the core of the transition...
-... are savings.
-No, you said 4% per year. If I got you right.
-The keystone of the transition is to go on a diet.
And anyway, that diet has already begun in France, whether you like it or not because Europe, if only we talked about that instead of the nuclear for 40 minutes in contrary to what I wanted,
Europe is already in current inexorable energetics decrease and I'm going to finish my phrase please, since 2007
and this why next governments, even on the left wing and even generous will not bring growth back in Europe for it has become physically impossible because of that.
So we'll be compelled to transition while in recession, and...
-What does that mean, "incurred energetics decrease"?
-It means that even if we wanted to consume more energy, we couldn't do so. And that now, we have less and less of it.
-Less and less... Of renewable, non renewable?
-No, 75% of Europe's supplies are fossil fuels. It's oil we didn't talk about, it's coal we didn't talk much about, it's gas we didn't talk much about, except for shale gas.
This represents 75% of Europe's supplies. And in France, when you look at the energy entering a machine, the energy allowing the devices of this studio to work, your fridge, people's car to go to work, aircrafts and so on,
75% of this energy come from fossil fuels. In France.
-You'll admit that it wasn't completely useless to have you talking about that, for your words are particularly...
rare, so everybody will judge if they're founded, useful, I don't know.
-Those fossil fuels are in an inexorable decrease. Gas coming into Europe is in incurred decrease since 2005,
because the North Sea which provides most of the european gas crossed its production peak in 2005,
coal is in incurred decrease in Europe since the 60s because we've been digging in the mines for 2 centuries, the British closed their mines, the French closed their mines, and so on. There's some left in Germany, but...
Since the 60s, so it has nothing to do with climate,
and oil is in incurred decrease in Europe since 2006 because conventional oil, meaning everything that's not shale oil or oil sands, crossed its production peak in the world in 2008,
topic on which media remain absolutely silent, and so we'll be unable to go back to a growing oil supply for european cars and boilers.
So we're already in an inexorable energetics decrease, less energy means less machines working, less machines means a lesser production, a lesser production means that the GDP drops.
Whether Emmanuel Macron and his friends like it or not. This an important topic, I would have preferred to talk about it. But there it is.
-Jean-Marc Jancovici, let me introduce my three fellows who'll continue this broadcast:
Aurélien Bellanger, Hervé Gardette and Mathilde Serrell. Hi guys! Hervé, what are you going tot talk about?
-I'm going to ask you if we should give the Elysée to an engineer?
-It's necessary to restore the trust...
-Wait, you'll react after the crônica!
-Mathilde Serrell?
-I'll talk about the culture pass: autopsy of a false good idea.
-And finally, Aurélien Bellanger?
-Eric Zemmour, a french folklore.
