March 11, 2011. An earthquake, a tsunami, and the name Fukushima Daiichi, forever etched in the collective memory. In a matter of hours, the unthinkable happened in the civilian nuclear industry: the meltdown of three reactor cores, mass evacuations, and permanently contaminated areas. Fifteen years later, the global industry continues to dissect the accident, like re-examining a crime scene to hunt down the flaw, the detail, the fatal chain of events.
Because Fukushima brought a brutal question back to the table: what happens to a power plant when it is struck by a major external attack and, above all, deprived of everything – the power supply, the cooling systems, the reassuring automated systems? Unlike Chernobyl, a sudden catastrophe with explosion and fire, Fukushima stretched out over time, a long crisis, extended releases, a dismantling site and the management of contaminated water that remind us that the aftermath of an accident can last a generation.
As the 40th anniversary of Chernobyl approaches on April 26, the comparison inevitably resurfaces. Both events share the same verdict on the INES scale: level 7, the maximum. But the causes and sequences are far from identical, and this is precisely what worries experts: nuclear risk doesn't wear a single mask. It changes its face, forcing states to consider the improbable scenario… and to prepare for it as if it were a certainty.
The Japanese lesson, applied to French
In France, the lessons learned have taken a very concrete form: "stress tests" overseen by the Nuclear Safety Authority, and a list of requirements addressing dikes, earthquakes, floods, and emergency response measures. EDF has even created the Nuclear Rapid Action Force (FARN), a kind of intervention brigade capable of deploying teams and equipment in an emergency to restore essential services: electricity and cooling. The focus is no longer simply on preventing accidents; it's on training to survive the worst.
Behind these measures lies a simple, almost mundane idea: a nuclear power plant must remain operational even when everything around it collapses. Authorities also emphasize crisis management, including the possibility of multiple reactors at the same site being affected simultaneously—a logistical and human nightmare, but one that can no longer be dismissed out of hand. For nuclear power to be accepted, it must prove that it doesn't depend on a single cable, a single pump, or a single optimistic assumption.
And while safety measures are being strengthened, nuclear power is regaining popularity. On March 10, Paris hosted a world summit on civil nuclear energy where some twenty countries called for mobilizing funding for an energy source presented as "a true sector of the future." France, for its part, has approved the construction of new reactors and the extension of the existing fleet, under the watchful eye of the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) and the ten-year inspections.
