Why are we afraid of nuclear power?
With energy poverty creeping on some parts of Europe, governments applying price ceilings and some universities about to close buildings down due to high bills, we could not help but wonder. Was there anything else we could have done to prevent the current state of energy…
What is going on?
Dear reader, how is your energy bill set to look this winter? It is likely to be much higher than last year, as we suffer from the consequences of the energy market meltdown. But the current state of European energy should not come as a surprise to those who have been following the years of inefficient energy policy decisions across some European countries. Projects like the Nord Stream gas pipelines sold to Europe increased the block’s dependence on fossil fuel and Russia, a decision that seemed reasonable with low gas prices and the aftermath of Fukushima accident. At the same time, Germany, Belgium and Spain, embarked on a mission of phasing-out their nuclear plants and have been focusing on renewable power such as solar or wind — in search of a more sustainable tomorrow. However, going all in on renewables poses an obvious problem due to the intermittent nature of the power, i.e., when the sun is no longer shining you need to substitute the power from a steady source such as coal, gas, or nuclear. Unlike fossil fuels that burn fuel, nuclear power is generated by the splitting of atoms (fission), meaning that no emissions are produced.
Would the energy mix of renewables + nuclear be better for the environment than renewables + gas? According to some countries no. But if you are concerned about rising emissions and rising energy prices, boycotting a steady emissions-free source of energy in favour of gas (a fossil fuel) seems extremely counterintuitive. So why does only 10% of global electricity comes from nuclear power?
Why are we boycotting nuclear?
Nuclear power sounds like the perfect fit for our efforts to meet the world’s growing energy demands while keeping emissions in check. However, nuclear has been enjoying an unpopular image over the past few decades. The failure of nuclear to go mainstream and claim its real potential could be broadly split into two categories:
Behaviour: Nuclear energy gets a bad reputation as its origins are intertwined with nuclear weapons. Add the two major nuclear disasters of Chernobyl (human error) and Fukushima (no deaths of radiation) and you have the perfect recipe for the anti-nuclear lobby. Despite global nuclear power preventing an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2, and as well as being a highly regulated industry that is cleared to be safe, nuclear is often perceived to be dangerous. We can link the irrational decisions about nuclear to behavioural phenomena of tolerating voluntary risks and trying to avoid wrongly perceived risks of involuntary exposures. We voluntarily sit in a car or bus, even if it significantly increases our chances of dying, but we do not support nuclear power because unlike the former we do not feel in control.
Politics: A country’s energy security is a highly political issue, with vested interests of different parties, (e.g., until recently, Germany’s ex-chancellor Gerhard Schröder sat on a board of the Russian oil company Rosneft). Decisions around energy have long-lasting consequences that surface only years later. For example, getting into bed with Russia and betting on gas does not strike us as the smart choice anymore, given the war in Ukraine. However, reverting political decisions takes time and, in the meantime, capital has already been deployed towards subsidies and infrastructure projects. Environmental Progress, a non-profit organisation, suggests that had Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables it would already be generating 100% or more of its electricity in low-emissions form. But in the anti-nuclear political climate fuelled by lobbying and personal or ulterior motives, going pro-nuclear would have cost votes.
What are the conclusions?
To address climate change is to address energy through building a resilient system, supported by new in battery storage, transmission, and renewable power. However, the inconvenient truth for many is that the transition to a net-zero economy will be impossible without the support of nuclear power. Going forward, the key obstacles with nuclear are difficulties with funding, slow moving long-term timelines and managing nuclear waste. However, the pros of strengthening this type of low-carbon energy source outweigh the cons (of which there are many, no doubt about that). We shall come back to this and future plans such as nuclear fusion and SMRs (small modular reactors) another week.
Luckily, some countries like the Netherlands, Belgium or California, are reverting their anti-nuclear stances in favour of investing in their nuclear plants to keep them running for a longer period. Nevertheless, these decisions are coming a decade too late.
P.S.
Personally, I am angry because the current situation we find ourselves in is a result of inefficient EU energy policy-making and negative nuclear rhetoric that ignored the scientific evidence. Luckily, some states like France understood that they couldn’t meet growing energy demands without nuclear. However, it is because of major EU countries that we do not have enough nuclear in Europe. I am also concerned, as there are millions who will likely have to decide between putting food on the table and heating their homes. Consequences will be felt as energy poverty is real. The energy crisis is a wakeup call to many, as we are bracing ourselves for winter. Let’s learn from the past for a more sustainable tomorrow, let’s go nuclear.
