Since the government announced plans to bury nuclear waste in Bure, the village has been at the epicenter of France's anti-nuclear movement — and the scene of recent clashes between activists and police.
Advertisement
Anti-nuclear protesters lug planks and beams across the muddy fields outside Bure, a village of just 90 inhabitants in northeastern France. They're preparing to build a treehouse in the Lejuc woods to replace those destroyed by police last month.
On February 22, some 500 police were sent to evacuate a few dozen activists occupying the woods in protest against the government's plan to bury radioactive waste in Bure.
The dawn evacuation took protesters by surprise. "A staggering number of officers came to the woods to demolish our homes, and destroy everything we'd created," says one activist, who asks to remain anonymous. Like many of his fellow protesters, he wears an owl mask to hide his face.
While tensions have grown between police and demonstrators in recent weeks, opposition to the project goes back decades.
Searching for a solution
Nuclear waste is a pressing problem in France, which gets 70 percent of its electricity from 58 nuclear plants.
In 1998, France's nuclear waste agency, Andra, began work on a vast underground laboratory dedicated to researching Bure's geology. The aim was to determine whether the site could host a deep geological repository — the technical term for an underground nuclear waste storage facility.
The ultimate goal is to store 80,000 cubic meters of high-level radioactive waste — which can remain hazardous to humans for tens of thousands of years — 500 meters underground.
"Our scientists have been studying the viability of deep geological repositories for more than 25 years," Frederic Plas, a research director at Andra, told DW. "At the Bure lab, we've researched the geological site's characteristics and tested the clay rock formation to determine whether or not it's capable of confining radioactivity."
Bertrand Pancher, who represents Bure in parliament, says he's convinced the project is safe.
The safest option?
"It's the best option in terms of security, and we elected officials were satisfied with the public debates that were held on this topic," Pancher told DW. "The law authorizing research on deep geological repositories also requires that the waste be retrievable for a century, meaning we can remove the waste should any problem arise."
The concept of "retrievability" is key to the debate. Under French law, deep geological repositories must allow for the waste to be removed from the site for at least 100 years — partly in case of unforeseen problems, but mostly in case scientists come up with a better way of disposing of the waste.
"The idea is not to bury [it] and forget [it] forever," Nicolas Mazzucchi, an energy expert at the Foundation for Strategic Research, a Paris think tank, told DW.
Most scientists say storing nuclear waste in deep geological repositories is safer than storing it above ground, where it may be exposed to the elements, or even acts of terrorism.
However, few want to live next door to such a repository — which is why potential sites tend to be located in remote areas like Bure.
Tough sell for locals
The French government is also sweetening the deal with a 1991 law, which established that regions hosting nuclear waste projects are to receive state financial aid. The two municipalities near the Bure lab receive some 30 million euros each per year — a considerable sum for rural areas with dwindling populations.
But the police's forceful response to protests does little to reassure locals the state has their interests at heart.
"I've been fighting this project for 25 years," local farmer Jean-Pierre Simon told DW. "The government wants to quash the opposition and appropriate the land. Eventually there will be no more farmers, and Andra will be able to do whatever it wants."
For now, the Bure lab is still just that — a lab. The government hasn't yet authorized it to operate as a deep geological repository. And activists in Bure are determined to keep it that way.
Does nuclear power have a future?
On April 26, 1986, the Chernobyl disaster released radiation across Ukraine, Russia and into Europe. It was turning point for the anti-nuclear movement. Now, 31 years later, is nuclear power becoming a thing of the past?
Image: Kerry Skyring
Deadly disaster
The worst nuclear disaster of all time, the explosion at Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine released massive amounts of radiation into the atmosphere. Areas close to the plant - in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia - were heavily contaminated. Heightened levels of radiation were also measured across most of Europe. The "exclusion zone" around Chernobyl remains off-limits to human habitation today.
Image: picture-alliance/ dpa
It happens again
After a magnitude-9 earthquake and consequent tsunami, three nuclear reactors at Fukushima power plant in Japan went into meltdown in March 2011. There were also four hydrogen explosions. The accident released 500 times as much radioactive cesium-137 as the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. The clean-up is expected to take decades.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa
Sickening impact
After Chernobyl, thousands of people developed cancer. In Japan too, the heavily contaminated region of Fukushima, where 200,000 people lost their homes, saw cases of the disease escalate. The number of children with thyroid cancer there is 20 times higher than other regions.
Image: Reuters
Rallying against nuclear power
Chernobyl fueled public opposition to nuclear power, particularly in Europe. The same happened after Fukushima. Before the Japanese disaster, the country relied on nuclear for 30 percent of its power. That has fallen to 1 percent. The government wants to continue producing nuclear power and plans to reinstall some reactors. But affected regions have successfully pushed back those plans.
Image: REUTERS
Nuclear industry in crisis
Today, the nuclear power sector is deep in economic crisis. In Japan, the United States and France, nuclear power plants run at a loss, and construction projects for new reactors have been postponed.
Image: Reuters
New-build set-backs
France had high hopes for its newest nuclear reactors - called pressurized water reactors (PWRs). This technology was supposed to be safe, and the Flamanville power plant was due to be switched on in 2012. Due to security issues, that's been pushed back to 2018 at the earliest. The project will cost more than 10 billion euros - three times the original budget.
Image: Getty Images/AFP/C. Triballeau
Great Britain plans new reactors
For years, the UK has been planning to build two new PWR reactors at Hinkley Point. Costs are estimated at 33 billion euros and groundbreaking is slated for 2019. But doubts are growing over its economic viability. The electricity it produces will be much pricier than solar or wind power, and will need subsidies to compete in the market.
Image: Getty Images/J. Tallis
Aging reactors up for grabs
Nuclear power plants used to be lucrative. But now, many are old and frail. Repair costs often mean they cannot turn a profit. Swiss energy corporation Alpiq recently tried to give away two of its old plants, 33 and 38 years old, to French energy company EDF - which declined the offer.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/P. Seeger
Disasters abroad prompt German phase-out
Three decades ago, the Chernobyl disaster galvanized Germany's anti-nuclear movement, which is often cited as the roots of the country's energy transition. In 2002, Germany passed a law that would have seen the last reactor shut down in 2022. The plan was later scrapped by Angela Merkel's government. But after Fukushima, Merkel quickly reversed her decision and the phase-out was back on track.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/D. Ebener
Switching them off
So far, nine of Germany's reactors have gone offline, with eight more to follow by 2022. To finance the costs of nuclear waste disposal, plant operators must pay 23.6 billion euros into a federal fund. The operators themselves are responsible for the similarly costly process of dismantling the plants, which will take decades to complete.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/D. Ebener
Growing fear of accidents
Across the EU and Switzerland 132 nuclear reactors are still online. They were designed to operate for 30 to 35 years - their average age is now 32 years. Malfunctions and security issues are frequently detected and protestors are increasingly calling for plants to be shut down.
Image: DW/G. Rueter
China pushes on with nuclear
No new nuclear power plants have been built in the EU, Japan or Russia since the Fukushima disaster in 2011. China remains committed to nuclear, partly to replace coal-based power. But the country is also upping investment in wind and solar.