first, by its complexity. What political decision -maker is capable of validating the scientific concepts exposed? Physicists should be trusted themselves. Problem: they do not seem to agree. Several have even put the opportunity of the FCC in doubt, for example in Mediapart or the Guardianwhich echoes criticism exposed in Nature. Especially because this monumental project is an insult to the climate emergency, and because it may absorb all research funds in particles physics for the next 50 years.
Figures that make you dizzy
Construction costs are estimated at 36.4 billion francs, including 6.6 billion civil engineering works. Groser estimates summarized on two pages, which we are asked to believe.
The volume of molasse to be extracted is enormous, more than 8 million cubic meters. We still do not know how such volumes of cuttings will be managed in terms of intermediate transport and storage. One thing is clear, it belongs to CERN, and not to Switzerland, to find solutions.
An energy abyss
CERN annual electricity consumption is currently 1.3 TWh. During the second phase of the project, it should approach the 3 TWh according to the study, a little more than the consumption of the entire canton of Geneva (2.7 TWh). Where should our dear and always rarer electricity go in priority: vehicle electrification, heat pumps, artificial intelligence, bitcoins, CERN?
The project’s detractors have shown that other environmental attacks are also remarkable: CO2 footprint, very virulent greenhouse gas emissions, pumping and rejection of hot water, use of rare metals, emission of low -radioactive waste.
Who to clean up?
For me, the most serious problem is that of inheritance for future generations. After having dug for 6 billion a 90 -kilometer long tunnel, the CERN will bury an underground factory more than 200 meters for more than 30 billion francs. Who will come out one day? At what price? And who will finance this dismantling? These essential questions have unfortunately never been addressed.
A recommendation to our decision -makers: we must require guarantees. Article 24 of the federal law on underground transport of goods is a good model: “If the construction or exploitation of the facilities ceases definitively, these are dismantled or secure at the expense of the owner.” Asking for guarantees for the dismantling of the existing would be a first step.
Related news :