Does nuclear cause fewer deaths than solar or wind?

In an interview with the Point, the former High Commissioner for Atomic Energy Yves Bréchet sends a cry of alarm on the future of nuclear power in France, saying that this energy would be much less deadly than renewable energy. What exactly is it?

During the interview, Yves Bréchet deplores the conventional wisdom surrounding the nuclear industry, which he believes is fueled "  by ideology and a lack of scientific culture in the media  ". It also refutes the idea that replacing carbon-free nuclear with renewable energies would reduce CO 2 emissions, and denounces the lack of a long-term vision of the state on these subjects.

A not so expensive EPR, nuclear not so dangerous

Addressing the issue of the Flamanville EPR, he denounced a "  loss of industrial skills  " and an "  accumulation of blunders  " resulting from the lack of power plant construction for 20 years, and responsible, according to him, for additional costs and delays. Yves Bréchet nevertheless refutes the idea that the project would be a bottomless pit: "  Assuming it costs 13 billion euros - which is far too expensive - it must be aware that it will last sixty years. It will produce 600 million megawatt-hours and bring in nearly 60 billion euros.

Among his many pronouncements, it is the assertion that nuclear power would be much less dangerous than renewable energies, which provoked the most reactions. Specifically, the former High Commissioner for Atomic Energy says: "  By kilowatt-hour produced, nuclear kills 1,700 times less than coal, 350 times less than oil and 4 times less than solar or wind, if we just count the falls during the installation and maintenance. Where do these numbers come from? And are they accurate?

What do the studies do on the subject say?

Although they can not be found identically, these orders of magnitude appear to be similar to the conclusions of studies carried out in recent decades. In 2017, the Our World in Data site reported low nuclear-related mortality based on a 2007 study ( "  Electricity generation and health  " ) published in The Lancet, which determined that nuclear-related deaths (direct deaths and subsequently induced cancers) would reach a maximum of 0.07 deaths per terawatt-hour produced ... 350 times less than coal and 260 times less than oil.

Nevertheless, it does not tell us anything about renewables, and these data are starting to date somewhat. It is, therefore, appropriate to refer to a more recent study (  Why nuclear energy is sustainable and Has to be the share of the energy mix  " ) published in the journal SM & T Elsevier, which established in 2014 the mortality figures related to different sources energy from data provided by the World Health Organization. 

According to this, even including the number of deaths related to the Fukushima disaster, nuclear power would not cause more than 0.04 deaths per billion kilowatt-hours produced. That is to say, 3.75 times less than wind power, 11 times less than solar on the roof, 35 times less than hydro, 100 times less than natural gas, 600 times less than biomass, 900 times less than oil, and 2,500 times less than coal ...

Sources: The Point, Our World in Data