New nuclear power stations must be built quickly in order to achieve the climate goals, said VVD party chairman Klaas Dijkhoff in Nieuwsuur. "As far as I'm concerned, we'll start soon. I hope we look at it rationally." That reports Business Insider.
The party leader knows in which minefield he is entering. Proposals such as those of the VVD can invariably count on emotional reactions. The nuclear energy debate is shrouded in a taboo atmosphere, which satirist Arjen Lubach tried to break on Sunday.
Lubach said that nuclear energy is indispensable to reduce CO2to reduce emissions sufficiently. He also said that its production is less harmful to people and the environment (compared to other energy sources) and that radioactive waste can be stored safely and compactly.
Not impressed
The opponents are not receptive to this story. Dijkhoff's proposal was immediately rejected by Rob Jetten of coalition partner D66. GroenLinks leader Jesse Klaver also quickly made himself heard. According to him, building nuclear power plants is not economically profitable, construction takes too long and the safety of the storage of radioactive waste cannot be guaranteed.
Eric Wiebes, Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate (and fellow party member of Dijkhoff), believes that nuclear energy is an option, but only after 2030. In a response to Dijkhoff's suggestion, Wiebes states that for the time being there is no business case for nuclear energy in to put. So on that point he agrees with Clover.
According to Wiebes, investments in nuclear energy, partly because of the low electricity prices, is currently not profitable and in recent years there have been no requests to build a nuclear power plant. But in the long run, this could change.
Can we do without nuclear energy?
Lubach's thesis that nuclear energy is indispensable to produce the required CO2reduction does not come out of the blue. The program relies on a investigation report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations organization that assesses the risks of climate change.
The report describes 4 scenarios in which global warming is limited to 1,5 degrees. In all scenarios, the share of nuclear energy in the global energy mix should increase significantly. Compared to 2010, this is at least a doubling to a factor of 5. So Lubach was not kidding when he said that the Netherlands could use a few new nuclear power stations.
The only active nuclear power plant in the Netherlands is located in Borssele. This accounts for only 3% of national electricity consumption. The Netherlands also imports electricity generated with nuclear energy, which is the total share of nuclear energy in the Netherlands according to Milieu Centraal to about 6%.
What are other countries doing?
The most recent figures from the European Nuclear Society (end 2016) show that there are 186 active nuclear power plants in Europe, with a further 15 under construction. France leads the way in both absolute and relative terms, with 58 nuclear power plants supplying 76% of the nation's power consumption.
However, after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, which caused problems at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, Germany and Switzerland announced to stop nuclear energy† If you subtract the number of nuclear power stations in those countries (13) from the number of nuclear power stations under construction (15), then it is hardly possible to speak of an increasing contribution from nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy to limit global warming
Do the Netherlands and most other European countries now have to work hard? If the IPCC is right and the production of nuclear energy must increase considerably, then the argument that building nuclear power plants takes too long does not hold. Rather, that is a reason to start today rather than tomorrow.
If the companies are not eager because nuclear power plants are not economically viable, the government will have to step in. It is committed to reducing CO2emissions and must be prepared to take measures that cost money. This affects Klaver's third argument: the government must keep aloof, because safe storage of radioactive waste cannot be guaranteed.
That is more difficult to refute. Some of the radioactive waste remains hazardous for years. The storage of the Central Organization for Radioactive Waste (COVRA) in Zeeland was built to withstand natural disasters, but no one can say with complete certainty that it will be safely stored all this time.
Read more on Business Insider:
- According to Wiebes, nuclear energy is only an option after 2030
- Dijkhoff wants to build new nuclear power plants to achieve climate goals
- First major health insurer announces premium
© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.
