by Düzgün Sarikaya | 28. Feb 2024 | Rämibühl Realgymnasium
Germany has already stepped out of nuclear energy usage – while England and France are planing to build new reactors.
In the year 2023, 24.5% of Europe’s electricity was generated from nuclear energy, while alternative green energy sources made up a total of 43% in energy production in Europe. Nuclear energy remains the biggest energy contributor in countries which are still in possession of active nuclear power plants. Due to these facts an exit might be easier said than done for such reliant countries.
Currently around 37% of electricity in Switzerland comes from nuclear reactors and in the year 2017 the people of Switzerland voted for a nuclear exit by the year 2050. The exit strategy includes a ban on the construction of new atomic reactors and large investments into net-zero energy sources.
I asked Lukas Aebi, the managing director of the Swiss Nuclear Forum, whether the exit from nuclear energy was really achievable for Switzerland by the year 2050.
“I don’t think that for Switzerland, a country which relies heavily on nuclear energy, a complete exit by 2050 is realistic. Switzerland gets around 60% of its energy from fossil fuels and yet nuclear energy costs less. Investments into alternative renewable sources should be made regardless of an exit from nuclear ones because they are needed anyway in the future due to the growing demand and need for electricity. There shouldn’t have to be a deadline for an exit that is not certain to be kept, especially if you still need to expand other energy sources too. Also, to guarantee domestic energy production and income, both nuclear and alternative renewable sources have to be kept active.”
Then I asked if hydropower were an efficient energy alternative for Switzerland and if investments and expansion in this field could replace our nuclear reactors.
He said: “Hydropower is already heavily developed and built in many places in Switzerland. I don’t see much significant growth in that sector from here since we already have many hydropower stations, and it still wouldn’t cover all of our nuclear energy output.”
I then asked him for his thoughts on the current differing stances of European nations regarding nuclear energy.
“There isn’t really a visible middle line that you can choose: you’re either strictly pro-nuclear energy or you’re strictly against it. You can see that split when politicians or parliaments block certain trade offers of energy exportations with foreign energy companies.”
After that I went on to talk to him about people’s attitude towards atomic power-plants and how these could have been forged.
“Most concerns about safety issues or arguments for shutting down power plants nowadays go back to the Fukushima-Incident. Since then, even the European Union has been monitoring the safety issues around nuclear energy production. That’s also a for the extremely high costs of building new power plants. In Europe there are tight regulations and safety checks, and construction plans take more time than in other countries like China or Russia. To counter negative attitudes, it would be best to have more transparent risk analysis of nuclear reactors and their potential flaws and to show these to the public.”
Decisions on energy policy do not entirely depend on the facts about demand and potential energy shortages. The mindset and understanding of the public affects how each country approaches the nuclear issue as well.
Former ETH Professor Michael Prasser says, “People’s attitudes towards nuclear energy influence political decisions. After the nuclear meltdown in Fukushima, people grew fearful and had their memories of the Tschernobyl accidentrevived. Soon people in Germany had started criticising the safety of German nuclear reactors and their potential dangers. The media immediately sided against the preservation of our power plants. Back then, I tried to explain the differences in safety precautions between our reactors with the ones in Fukushima, but not many people were interested in technical aspects. Meanwhile the media used my statements selectively to fit their stories. Since then, Fukushima has been a prime example for raising doubts when talking about nuclear energy. Nowadays all that is remembered from that time are the media’s headlines from back then, even though these included little technical insight.”
Currently nearly all the countries like Spain and Belgium which were planning to give up nuclear energy have extended their exit deadlines. The reasons are not hard to find. Up to now Spain, for example, has enjoyed rapid economic growth at nearly three times the European average growth of 0.9%. During a period of economic growth, it would be damaging for domestic industry to force it into a rapid change of energy source. Since Spain hasn’t covered its dependence on nuclear energy, which accounts for 21.5% of all electricity, electricity costs would rise and domestic production of goods would be hindered and less profitable. Spain still aspires to realise its goal of an exit from atomic energy. It has been investing heavily in solar energy. All in all, an exit does not seem completely unrealistic for Spain.
However, converting from nuclear energy to alternative green energy still isn’t guaranteed to go smoothly for every European country, since not every country has the necessary resources, such as enough windy days, sunny climate or geological factors. For example, due to Switzerland’s mountainous geography, planning for the construction of hydropower plants and solar panels is progressing well, and these reserves could potentially cover the energy output of nuclear reactors.
On the other hand, countries like the United Kingdom and France which have no plans to get rid of their nuclear reactors are nevertheless determined to capitalise on solar or offshore wind- energy as well. Power supply throughout the entire year raises difficulties for many countries that are pursuing a net zero goal. For countries like Finland and Sweden with colder climates and frequently changing weather, solar and water generated energies don’t appear very reliable options. At the moment the only guarantee for continuous energy flow in those European regions is from active nuclear power plants.
Poland, for example, would rather bet on investing in new reactors in order to secure its energy reserves during its long winters. This doesn’t necessarily mean that it and similar countries have run out of options, but possible alternatives like geothermal energy or bioenergy for bigger national usages aren’t developed enough to be completely depended on.
“In the end every country has to decide whether, why and how it should give up nuclear energy. Some will accept the potential risks that come with nuclear sources and others will argue that it is an ideal technology for securing energy generation that provides assurance for electricity reserves,” according to Dr. Rüdisüli a senior energy expert at Swiss Energy Association, VSE. Management of domestic energy production differs quite widely in many European countries, particularly with regard to nuclear energy.
Dr. Rüdisüli also says that nations sometimes tend to cling to the forms of energy production they are familiar with. He says that in some cases the retirement of nuclear reactors is not even an issue. Energy prices would affect many people and cause major financial difficulties for the whole nation.
In Germany and France people’s fears dictate national policy – but the fears are different, and therefore the results are too. Germans worry about nuclear catastrophes while the French are more concerned about a financial meltdown.
Considering all these factors and movements in the field of atomic energy in Europe the future of it in Europe is very uncertain. At the moment, even the planned exit from atomic energy by countries such as Spain, Switzerland and Belgium are not seen as realistically achievable in the short time they want to leave.
Having spoken to three different experts and specialists in the field of nuclear energy, it seems as though the future of nuclear power in Europe is difficult to predict. There have been many recent extensions of exit dates and not enough developed alternative sources in the countries concerned. Still, it is evident that many European countries are investing or developing heavily in their fields of renewable energy sources, even if they have not decided definitely if or when to go completely non-nuclear.
Of course, all this begs the fundamental question of whether nuclear energy itself is a green source of energy and if it is the right way to fight climate change. Answering that question is not straightforward. It is easy for nuclear experts to say that nuclear reactors don’t produce green house gas-emissions, but they cannot deny that the radioactive toxic substances which are a byproduct of production process remain a present problem. The countries of Switzerland, Spain and Belgium still lack a final storage solution for radioactive waste. Switzerland has plans to build one, but it will only start construction in 2045 and Spain is even further behind. Spain currently only has the “El Cabril” storage facility, which was not originally intended for high radioactive waste – and it exports some such waste to France.
The biggest advantage a nuclear power plant has compared to different renewable energy sources is the amount of energy it can produce and the smaller space required by these reactors. With regard to the fight against climate change, at first sight keeping nuclear reactors running seems like a logical solution but in reality, the entire life cycle of one reactor needs to be taken into account and how many polluting gases are emitted during construction and operation. Depending on the electricity mix used in uranium production and other variables, universities in America calculated a climate cost of 68-180 grams of CO2/kWh will be produced during energy production during a reactor’s lifetime. The construction cycle of newer reactor types causes even more emissions, so relying on nuclear reactors for a climate friendly future appears unrealistic.
In the meantime, according to the International Energy Agency IEA nuclear energies represent the backbone of the response to power sector decarbonisation. In the face of today’s energy crisis, the move away from fossil fuels and reaching net zero emissions of greenhouse gases have become top energy security priorities. The IAE states that nuclear energy contributes to both goals by avoiding 1.5 gigatonnes of global emissions and 180 billion cubic metre of global gas demand a year. So in countries where nuclear energy has been accepted, it can help ensure secure and low emissions electricity systems.
Nevertheless, at the moment there is no country that can afford to abandon its nuclear power programme in the next five years. Even the countries that have pledged to go non-nuclear may well have to announce further delays to their exit strategies.
