Several European countries were, until relatively recently, phasing out their nuclear power stations, or planning to. Many are now changing course.
Several countries are reversing their energy policies as nuclear power gets a second look.
F or a long time, the use of nuclear power has been hobbled by irrational fear, and by politicians’ fear of fear. But the times are changing.
Several European countries were, until relatively recently, phasing out their nuclear-power stations, or planning to. Germany is the most prominent example, but Belgium too. Even France, the most pro-nuclear country in Europe, shut down its Fessenheim nuclear plant, and in 2017, President Macron pledged to reduce nuclear power’s share of France’s energy mix to 50 percent.
Compared with nuclear power, solar is much cheaper and easier to install. But the problem of designing scalable storage systems capable of dealing with the problem of intermittency for both solar and, for that matter, wind (the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow) has yet to be resolved. They are not, at least for now, sufficiently reliable to serve as the bedrock of energy supply. Perhaps batteries and alternatives such as hydrogen may be able to help make up for these shortcomings in the future, but we are not there yet. Nuclear power, by contrast, can serve as the stable backbone of an electricity grid.
And thus it’s to be welcomed that nuclear power will feature in the discussions in the forthcoming COP28 climate talks in Dubai at the end of this month. Sultan Al Jaber, the UAE’s minister of industry and host of this international conference, has stressed that we cannot simply unplug the existing energy system without a viable alternative in place. He pointed out that oil and gas will be with us for decades, even if he considers its decline “inevitable.”
According to Al Jaber, we must therefore ramp up all available technologies to “minimize emissions.” Last year, Al Jaber told oil executives in Abu Dhabi, “The world needs all the solutions it can get. It is oil and gas and solar, and wind and nuclear, and hydrogen plus the clean energies yet to be discovered, commercialized and deployed.” He thus considers carbon capture to be an essential part of the mix. It can be used to ensure that emissions from continued oil and gas production can be eliminated.
It is thus no surprise that he has raised the question of nuclear, which has a much smaller carbon footprint than fossil fuels. Over the last year or two, we have witnessed signs of a true nuclear renaissance.
France, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic have all decided to build new nuclear plants. The Swedish parliament has passed a new energy target, easing the way for new nuclear power — a reversal 40 years after the country decided to abandon nuclear (even though the actual decommissioning of its nuclear power stations has been a leisurely process). Italy too is considering following a similar path, while a brand-new nuclear plant in Finland was opened earlier this year.
Importantly, in Belgium, the government has secured a deal with the French owner of Belgium’s seven nuclear reactors to keep some of those operational for a few more years. Sadly, only two out of the seven reactors will keep going, which is due to the obstruction of the anti-nuclear greens in the Belgian federal government.
Even Germany, traditionally a hotbed of anti-nuclear sentiment, decided to extend at least some of its nuclear reactors for a bit longer last year in the wake of worries about an energy crunch following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Two-thirds of Germans are in favor to keeping them operational for longer, which now appears to be technologically possible. But Germany’s governing coalition, which includes anti-nuclear greens, refused to let that happen, despite leaders of the country’s industrial sector raising the alarm over how steep energy prices are contributing to deindustrialization.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., the nuclear-power renaissance is being given a second look. The Biden administration is pouring billions into the industry, while in blackout-prone California, the life of the nuclear power plant at Diablo Canyon is being extended for 20 years.
In China, where enthusiasm for nuclear power never went away, 38 nuclear reactors are in operation and 19 new ones are under construction. China also signed a $4.8 billion deal with Pakistan this year to build a 1,200-megawatt nuclear power plant in that country. In Russia, seven new reactors are under construction, in India six, and in South Korea three.
Even in what could be called the headquarters of the fossil-fuel world, Saudi Arabia, there are advanced plans to establish a civil nuclear-power industry. In February 2022, the country established the Saudi Nuclear Energy Holding Company. (SNEHC) as the kingdom’s nuclear developer. Bids were received earlier this year for the construction of two 1.4 giga-watt electric reactors. Just like with its investment in solar and wind power, this goal is meant to aid diversification and to reduce the kingdom’s dependence on oil.
Angela Merkel’s decision to resume the planned phaseout of nuclear power by 2022 (which had been introduced by a preceding government, but which she had postponed) followed the Fukushima disaster in Japan, but even Japan is going all-in on nuclear power again. That makes sense. As well-known (and hard-line) British environmental activist George Monbiot wrote at the time of the disaster: “Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power. . . . A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.”
That view has been vindicated. Up until now, there has only been one officially confirmed cancer death attributed to radiation exposure for the purpose of compensation following opinions from a panel of radiologists and other experts. When looking at “death rates per unit of electricity production,” nuclear power ranks even safer than wind power, and only slightly less safe than the safest energy source, solar power.
That all relates to the current generation of nuclear reactors. New, small, modular reactors are being developed, which offer a lower initial capital investment, a shorter installation period, greater scalability, and siting flexibility for locations unable to accommodate more traditional, larger reactors. More generally, spent nuclear fuel can be (and is) recycled to make new fuel and byproducts. This makes nuclear power truly part of the “circular economy” desired by many environmentalists.