Atomic energy, who is still against it? Almost no one in The Hague anymore, it seems. Nuclear energy has been making a comeback in the public debate for about five years, but in the run-up to these parliamentary elections it is more taken for granted than ever. The vast majority of political parties today are in favor. Parties that are still against, such as GroenLinks-PvdA, the SP and the Party for the Animals, are dismissed as unworldly and hypocritical, because in the fight against global warming should not all available resources be embraced, including those of left-wing parties somewhat less popular? There is no longer any broad social resistance to nuclear energy, as in the 1980s.
Admittedly, the climate crisis is already so bad that it is probably a good idea to consider all forms of energy that can alleviate the problems. Combating climate change would also benefit from less destructive consumption patterns, but in that area the signs are not very promising. For example, the crowds at airports are greater than before the corona crisis, and the abolition of subsidies on kerosene – which would make flying less attractive – is happening significantly less quickly in The Hague. The Council of State concluded this week that the cabinet is “too optimistic” about the feasibility of climate goals.
At the same time, it is highly questionable whether a few new nuclear power stations in the Netherlands will make a difference. Probably not in the short term: in the best case, if all goes well, the Netherlands could have two new, operational nuclear power stations in more or less a decade. Last year, the cabinet wrote that construction could be completed in 2035. Last week, director Carlo Wolters of the EPZ nuclear power plant in Borssele told the… Provincial Zeeland Courant according to him, 2031 also feasible is.
That sounds great, but building nuclear power plants can, as the past shows, be notoriously erratic. And it would not be the first time that a power plant was completed much later than hoped, due to disappointing financing, difficult permitting, social unrest or a combination of the three. Many experts think that 20 years of delivery time is much more realistic, so this would all come too late to achieve the climate goals that the Netherlands itself embraces in 2030 and 2040.
Also read
Not everyone in Borssele is waiting for two more nuclear power stations
And then there are the disadvantages associated with nuclear energy. To start with, nuclear waste, which will have to be looked after for generations to come. The question is also whether the Netherlands is too small for such a concentration of nuclear power stations – it is not without reason that in other countries they are often located in emptier areas. Nuclear power plants themselves are increasingly safer, but also potentially vulnerable. The Russian-occupied power station in Zaporizhia, Ukraine, has now become nothing less than a weapon. The draining of the Dnipro River created an acute cooling water problem. That all seems far away, but in France, a nuclear energy champion, power production from nuclear power stations was forced to be scaled back last year due to heat and drought and a shortage of cooling water. France has also been working for years to reduce its dependence on Nigerien uranium mines, due to unrest in the region – recently there was a coup in Niger.
Nuclear energy also requires long-term political vision and predictability in our own country. This was lacking in France, and dozens of reactors had to be shut down in recent years due to overdue maintenance and corrosion. In Germany, after the accident at the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan in 2011, there was a radical break with nuclear energy, which not only caused problems in Germany itself, but also in surrounding countries. It is not possible to simply change your opinion about nuclear energy. It is a long-term commitment.
The main objection to nuclear energy, however, is the political laziness it can cause. Anyone who now claims that nuclear energy can help achieve climate goals in ten or twenty years is actually saying: we don’t need to do much now, because we will soon catch up. The argument often heard in The Hague that nuclear power can serve as a ‘back-up’ at times when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, is nonsense. Electricity is too expensive for that and such a power station cannot simply be switched on and off. Nuclear energy is not a bad idea in advance, in the total energy mix it can contribute to a cleaner world. But it can also gain momentum from other developments, such as solar and wind energy, reducing energy consumption, or from crucial reforms in agriculture and transport, for example.