POINTS OF VIEW

GET INVOLVED

Home
Dialogue
Points of view
Face to face

Face to face

Choosing your energy sources, choosing your future

Jürgen Maier
NGO F.U.E.

Cédric Philibert
IEA

Are "zero risk" and "zero impact" meaningful concepts when talking about energy production?

Risk is inherent in all the production processes of major industries. But nuclear accidents have such catastrophic consequences, as we saw in Chernobyl, that the ultimately unpredictable risk they entail cannot be justified in any way, especially when you add the threat of terrorism. The climate change risk associated with the use of fossil fuels seems easier to predict and calculate, but its consequences are just as unacceptable.
Consequently, energy production must move away from nuclear technology in the short term and fossil fuels in the medium and long term. Conversely, the risk posed by renewable energies is -with the exception of large hydraulic dams- much more limited. It is almost impossible to imagine that the threat of dangerous accidents and terrorists is practically nil.

There is no such thing as zero risk or zero impact. We can lower energy production risks and impact through efficient energy use. There is still much we can do, by changing behavior and technologies.
But we will always need energy and we will always have to make tradeoffs between its drawbacks and various risks—and not just environmental ones.
For example, if we want renewable energies to play a truly major role in Europe, we won't be able to rely solely on our own resources. We'll have to look at places where sunlight is plentiful—south of the Mediterranean.
Some will see that as swapping an environmental risk for a geopolitical one; others will consider it an opportunity on both scores.