EU Europe Is Losing Nuclear Power Just When It Really Needs Energy - Countries are plunging deeper into an energy crisis, but some governments are still shutting down reactors.


1643748460160.png

Wind turbines at Germany’s Grohnde nuclear power plant, which was taken off the grid on Dec. 31, 2021.

As the Fukushima disaster unfolded in Japan in 2011, then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel made a dramatic decision that delighted her country’s anti-nuclear movement: all reactors would be ditched.

What couldn’t have been predicted was that Europe would find itself mired in one of the worst energy crises in its history. A decade later, the continent’s biggest economy has shut down almost all its capacity already. The rest will be switched off at the end of 2022 — at the worst possible time.

Wholesale power prices are more than four times what they were at the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Governments are having to take emergency action to support domestic and industrial consumers faced with crippling bills, which could rise higher if the tension over Ukraine escalates. The crunch has not only exposed Europe’s supply vulnerabilities, but also the entrenched cultural and political divisions over the nuclear industry and a failure to forge a collective vision.

Other regions meanwhile are cracking on. China is moving fast on nuclear to try to clean up its air quality. Its suite of reactors is on track to surpass that of the U.S., the world’s largest, by as soon as the middle of this decade. Russia is moving forward with new stations at home and has more than 20 reactors confirmed or planned for export construction, according to the World Nuclear Association.

Screenshot_20220201_174857.png


“I don’t think we’re ever going to see consensus across Europe with regards to the continued running of existing assets, let alone the construction of new ones,” said Peter Osbaldstone, research director for power and renewables at Wood Mackenzie Group Ltd. in the U.K. “It’s such a massive polarizer of opinions that national energy policy is required in strength over a sustained period to support new nuclear investment.”

France, Europe’s most prolific nuclear energy producer, is promising an atomic renaissance as its output becomes less reliable. Britain plans to replace aging plants in the quest for cleaner, more reliable energy sources. The Netherlands wants to add more capacity, Poland also is seeking to join the nuclear club, and Finland is starting to produce electricity later this month from its first new plant in four decades.

Belgium and Spain, meanwhile, are following Germany’s lead in abandoning nuclear, albeit on different timeframes. Austria rejected it in a referendum in 1978.

1643748582018.png

Workers inside the Olkiluoto-3 nuclear plant in Finland.

Nuclear power is seen by its proponents as vital to reaching net-zero targets. Once built, reactors supply low-carbon electricity all the time, unlike intermittent wind or solar.

Plants, though, take a decade or more to construct at best and the risk is high of running over time and over budget. Finland’s new Olkiluoto-3 unit is coming on line after a 12-year delay and billions of euros in financial overruns. Then there’s the waste, which stays hazardous for 100,000 years.

“Despite growing international calls to address climate change and a growing number of national net-zero pledges, the global nuclear industry remains largely on its heels,” said Chris Gadomski, head of nuclear research at Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Indeed, European Union members are still quarreling over whether nuclear even counts as sustainable. Electorates are also split. Polling by YouGov Plc published in December found that Danes, Germans and Italians were far more nuclear-skeptic than the French, British or Spanish.

“It comes down to politics,” said Vince Zabielski, partner at New York-based law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, who was a nuclear engineer for 15 years. “Everything political ebbs and flows, but when the lights start going off people have a completely different perspective.”

There’s a risk of rolling blackouts this winter. Supply concerns plaguing Europe have sent gas and electricity prices to record levels and inflation has ballooned. There’s also mounting tension with Russia over a possible invasion of Ukraine, which could lead to disrupted supplies of gas. All this is strengthening the argument that Europe needs to reduce its dependence on international sources of gas.

Screenshot_20220201_175031.png


Europe will need to invest 500 billion euros ($568 billion) in nuclear over the next 30 years to meet growing demand for electricity and achieve its carbon reduction targets, according to Thierry Breton, the EU’s internal market commissioner. His comments come after the bloc unveiled plans last month to allow certain natural gas and nuclear energy projects to be classified as sustainable investments.

“Nuclear power is a very long-term investment and investors need some kind of guarantee that it will generate a payoff,” said Elina Brutschin at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. In order to survive in liberalized economies like the EU, the technology needs policy support to help protect investors, she said.

That already looks like a tall order. The European Commission has been told by a key expert group that the labeling risks raising greenhouse gas emissions and undermining the bloc’s reputation as a bastion for environmentally friendly finance.

1643748663512.png

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station near Bridgwater, U.K., on Sept. 15, 2021.

Austria has threatened to sue the European Commission over attempts to label atomic energy as green. The nation previously attempted a legal challenge, when the U.K. was still an EU member, to stop the construction of Electricite de France SA’s Hinkley Point C plant, in the west of England. It has also commenced litigation against new Russia-backed projects in neighboring Hungary.

Germany, which has missed its carbon emissions targets for the past two years, has been criticized by some environmentalists and climate scientists for shutting down a supply of clean power at the worst time. Its final three reactors will be halted this year. Yet that was never going to be reversed with the Greens part of the new coalition government.

The contribution of renewables in Germany has almost tripled since the year before Fukushima, and was 42% of supply last year. That’s a drop from 46% from the year before and means the country’s new government will have to install some 3 gigawatts of renewables — equivalent to the generating capacity of three nuclear reactors — every year this decade to hit the country's 80% goal.

“Other countries don’t have this strong political background that goes back to three decades of anti-nuclear protests,” said Manuel Koehler, managing director of Aurora Energy Research Ltd., a company analyzing power markets and founded by Oxford University academics.

At the heart of the issue is that countries with a history of nuclear weapons will be more likely to use the fuel for power generation. They will also have built an industry and jobs in civil engineering around that.

1643748752004.png

Protests against nuclear energy in Germany on May 25, 1986, after the Chernobyl disaster.

Germany’s Greens grew out of anti-nuclear protest movements against the stationing of U.S. nuclear missiles in West Germany. The 1986 Chernobyl meltdown, which sent plumes of radioactive fallout wafting over parts of western Europe, helped galvanize the broader population. Nuclear phase-out plans were originally laid out in 2002, but were put on hold by the country’s conservative governments. The 2011 Fukushima meltdowns reinvigorated public debate, ultimately prompting Merkel to implement them.

It’s not easy to undo that commitment, said Mark Hibbs, a Bonn, Germany-based nuclear analyst at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: “These are strategic decisions, that have been taken long in advance.”

In France, President Emmanuel Macron is about to embark on a renewed embrace of nuclear power. The nation produces about two-thirds of its power from reactors and is the biggest exporter of electricity in Europe. Notably, that includes anti-nuclear Germany and Austria.

EDF, the world’s biggest nuclear plant operator, is urging the French government to support construction of six new large-scale reactors at an estimated cost of about 50 billion euros. The first of them would start generating in 2035.

But even France has faced setbacks. Development of new projects has been put on hold after years of technical issues at the Flamanville-3 project in Normandy. The plant is now scheduled to be completed next year.

1643748828324.png

EDF’s Flamanville-3 reactor in Flamanville, France.

In the U.K., Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said that the global gas price crisis underscores the need for more home-generated clean power. By 2024, five of Britain’s eight plants will be shuttered because they are too old. Hinkley Point C is due to be finished in 2026 and the government will make a final decision on another station before an election due in 2024.

One solution is to build small modular reactors, or SMRs, which are quicker to construct and cheaper. The U.S. is at the forefront of efforts to design smaller nuclear systems with plans also underway in the U.K. and France. Yet they too have faced delays. SMR designs have existed for decades though face the same challenging economic metrics and safety and security regulations of big plants.

The trouble, as ever, is time. “Any investment decisions you make now aren’t going to come to fruition until the 2030s,” said Osbaldstone, the research director at Wood Mackenzie. “Nuclear isn’t an answer to the current energy crisis.”



Enjoy the rolling blackouts and 500000% price increase in your electricity bill, compliments of Greta.

1643749268701.png
 
Repeat it with me everyone!

NUCLEAR POWER IS THE CLEANEST AND MOST EFFECIENT POWER WE HAVE, SO WHY THE FUCK ARE WE CLOSING REACTORS DOWN!?!??!
How else do you set the stage for a chinese takeover so you can do away with pesky things like human rights?

Merkel manages to fuck the Germans once again. Seriously I can't help but think that between this and her many, many, many other fuck ups that she's going to be regarded as one of the worst german leaders of all time. 1000 years from now she'll probably be looked at like one of those Roman emperors that inexplicably managed to hold power for decades, all while totally ruining things.
Considering the track record of accurate assesment of German leaders, she'll probably go into the history books as one of the greatest stateswomen ever lived and will be played by meryl streep's granddaughter in the biopic.
 
Everytime people freak out about Nuclear power and mention Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island (because that's all anyone knows), I often wonder how many other power plant accidents have happened. So today I stopped being lazy and went looking.

This is WAPO, so temper your expectations accordingly, but...

Compared with nuclear power, coal is responsible for five times as many worker deaths from accidents, 470 times as many deaths due to air pollution among members of the public, and more than 1,000 times as many cases of serious illness, according to a study of the health effects of electricity generation in Europe.

Built into the calculations are the consequences of what are called “beyond-design” nuclear accidents — events similar to what is underway in Japan. However, there aren’t enough big nuclear plant accidents to provide a statistically meaningful estimate of their frequency, effects and costs. According to a database compiled by the Paul Scherrer Institut, from 1970 to 2008 there were 1,686 accidents in the coal industry, 531 in the oil industry and 186 involving natural gas in which five or more people died. There was just one such nuclear accident — at Chernobyl 25 years ago this month.

Using similar methods, Markandya and his co-author in the Lancet study, Paul Wilkinson of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, found that in Europe coal is responsible for .12 deaths from accidents, 25 deaths from pollution and 225 cases of serious illness per terawatt (1,000 billion kilowatt) hour of electricity generated. In comparison, nuclear causes .02 accidental deaths, .05 pollution deaths and .22 cases of illness.
This human health cost is much higher in some parts of the world than others.
It’s especially high in China, where three-quarters of the electricity is made by burning coal, mining accidents kill about 6,000 people a year, and hundreds of millions of people are affected by air pollution. In some inland cities, the economic cost to human health of making electricity from coal is as much as seven times higher than the cost of generating the electricity, according to a calculation by Stefan Hirschberg at the Paul Scherrer Institutin Switzerland, which has done energy system analysis for the European Commission.

Don't get me wrong, the possibility of nuclear having far worse consequences for a single accident is higher; but even then, the numbers don't lie (if they are accurate).
 
I get the impression that you Magyars know what the score is, and choose to do your own thing instead. The sigmas of Europe, considering the current state of things.

[Packing bags]

How is Budapest this time of the year?

It is a rathole full of libs.

It is known as the City in red rags for a reason.

The last few centuries have thaught us that when elephants fight, grass gets trampled underfoot.

This is why we cozy with Putin and Xi, and tried the same with the USA under the bad orange.

Its not that we love to be their buddies, its that they can crush us like a turkroach if we aren't.
 
Última edición:
It is a rathole full of libs.

It is known as the City in red rags for a reason.

The last few centuries have thaught us that when elephants fight, grass gets trampled underfoot.

This is why we cozy with Putin and Xi, and tried thr same under the bad orange.

Its not that we love to be their buddies, its that they can crush us like a turkroach if we aren't.
Invoke the spirit of Pál Kinizsi, reportedly he has never lost a battle.

Screenshot_20220202_094850.png


Sign me up as a honorary Magyar and we'll fight them to the death. My only prize should be an opinionated Danube queen, Magyar Lebensraum now.
 
Sure smells like a manufactured crisis it's what I say...

Who has to gain from policy that aims to reduce national autonomy of energy production while relaying on the good graces of an antagonistic government instead?
 
Russia should shut off it's pipelines for the lulz.

Watch the Eurofags leave their homes and huddle inside community centers to stay warm and alive. Laugh at stories where people accidentally poison themselves with charcoal grills.

NGL, Russia just flexing on Germany by turning the gas tap on and off for lulz would be chad as fuck.

How do you shutter functioning, generally safe nuke plants during a crisis-level energy shortage and expect anyone to take you seriously? Get fucked, umlauts.

ETA:

Anyone who thinks like this guy deserves minecrafting. Peak oxygen thievery.
 
Última edición:

Looks like he's being sarcastic and commenting on the left, since he follows up with pro-nuclear comments.

He's also screencapping some article by Greta or her handlers that doesn't even mention nuclear, it's about fossil fuels being racist.

I don't think there's any high-level, logical reasoning for the left's hate of nuclear other than political tradition, being anti-nuclear has a general "green" feel about it, and it's a safe stance to take for every left politician, until they eventually have to answer for the spike in fossil fuels they create.

I unironically hope that Germany has some sort of energy collapse, with consequences so bad it scares the rest of the left straight and stops their ramping up of fossil fuels.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo