Two years ago, it was quite fashionable to say when you were a Prime Minister or just a minister: our country is going to develop green energy instead of the nuclear one, which is too dangerous. Those countries were betting one their old gas station energy to continue to produce their needs of electricity before the rise of the green revolution. Nowadays, those speeches are gone, and it is time for a standing ovation for the nuclear energy.
Few months ago, the European Union had adopted a very nice text about energy and fight against climate change. The nickname of this text is the triple 20. Quite simple: in 2020, 20% of the European energy will have to be green and each European country will have to produce 20% less of CO2.
Instead of the French pressure, this text doesn’t mention the nuclear energy. Even if this energy does not produce CO2, it can not be considered as a renewable energy. And at this time, most of the European countries thought that they could fulfill this plan without it, especially because of the pressure from public opinion. And as I said, the green energy was very fashionable.
However, if something has changed…Look, many countries are thinking about how to launch new nuclear energy stations as soon as possible.
Few days ago, Berlusconi signed a contract with France for four reactors.
The UK is also on the way to do it.
Poland thinks the same. This country does not produce any electricity from the nuclear energy, but the actual government sees in the nuclear energy an opportunity to be less dependant from Russia, the coal (which produce to much CO2) and
In Germany, the minister of Economy, Michael Glos said “the actual gas crisis shows us that we can not renounce to any kind of source of energy”. In a less diplomatic vocabulary, it means that stopping all the nuclear energy production in Germany is probably not the best idea…And that it could be useful to keep some. The main problem is one day a German government wants to re-start a nuclear energy program, will be the public opinion, strongly against it.
The Swedish government has also changed its mind. When few years ago they decided to stop their entire nuclear energy program, the country is now going to re-start it.
On the East side of the European Union, we also have Slovakia and Bulgaria who would like to use nuclear energy again. Before their accession to the EU, they had both of them on nuclear energy station that they had to stop for security reasons. The order came from Brussels.
Why this nuclear wave in Europe?
Several reasons could explain it:
- The recent gas crisis with Russia. Number of countries understand that their dependence to Moscow is a weakness and a threat, especially with this ambitious administration leaded by Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Medvedev.
- The nuclear energy is cheaper than any other energy from gas or oil. Countries see it like a good investment. Especially with the actual crisis.
- The need of energy in the future will increase and even if the share of the green energy is increasing, it will not be enough.
- When last year, the price of oil and gas was really high, it had become a real problem for those countries to pay the bill.
- Renewable energies are probably the future, but none of them can now provide enough electricity for industrial countries right now.
Those news are quite good for France, and the French company Areva, practicing lobby for many years, trying to sell nuclear energy stations everywhere in the world. But what about European citizens? What do they prefer? More cheap/somehow dangerous energy or less expensive/clean energy? And what about yours deputies? Why don’t they talk about it in their campaign.
However, even if they start to talk about it, it seems that the nuclear energy is now very fashionable.
(18 votes, average: 4.22 out of 5)
Loading ...
“Even if this energy does not produce CO2, it can not be considered as a renewable energy.”
True, but it’s sustainable energy; known reserves of uranium ore are enough to power the world for a very long time, and its waste, while dangerous, is low in volume - and we have the technology to contain it.
Sweden is doing an interesting thing, they’re allowing new reactors, but only on the sites of previous reactors.
While I appreciate you not thinking of the Baltics as Eastern Europe (it’s what we’ve been trying to accomplish), there is also the old Ignalina station in Lithuania - originally the plan was to build new reactors as a common project between Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, but now it seems like Poland wants too big a slice of the pie. Estonia has basically decided that it will be building a nuclear power station and has even selected a few good sites for the construction, but we also have the backup idea of bearing part of the cost of a new Finnish reactor, in addition for some of its output. (Estonia is actually a net exporter of electricity, and a lot of EU development money around here has been going into establishing a Baltic Rim energy grid.)
I would like some nuclear energy. Let us free ourselves from Middle Eastern tyrants and their oil. Let us stop burning filthy coal. Let us stop talking the “clean politics, clear air” talk and start walking the responsible walk.
What is responsible about nuclear energy, if I may ask? We saw leaking nuclear power plants in France last year - and have you all forgotten about Tchernobyl?
How about all the powerplants all around the world that haven’t exploded?
FWIW, a friend from Kiev tells me that a lot of the land around Tchernobyl has been bought up (for pennies) by officials from the Ukrainian atomic energy authority, because the soil cleaned itself up better than anyone expected.
Then there is the issue of comparative impact. I’d venture that the damage from open-face coal mining, even oil and natural gas recovery, is bigger per megawatt of useful energy than that of nuclear power stations - Tchernobyl and Three Mile Island included.
You’re right: atomic energy is hazardous, and power stations must be subject to the strictest scrutiny we can fathom. But it’s by far the most viable way we have of supplying the world with the energy it wants, at an environmental cost which is bearable.
The people promoting nuclear energy seem to understand the threat well enough - which is why breeder reactors (designed to deliver weapons-grade material as a byproduct, to sell to the US and Soviet governments) are being shut down, and the ones being planned now are either pebble bed reactors (which cannot go into meltdown, by design - in case of a fault the radioactive fuel just cools and becomes inert), or even completely self-contained, maintenance-free and recyclable units like the Hyperion baby reactor.
If it is all so simple and easy and clean, do you also have a solution where to store the radioactive waste?
Last year, radioactive brine leaked from a saltmine in Germany (Asse), where waste has been stored for about 30 years.
I do not think that nuclear energy is clean and safe. Of course, coal mines also destroy the environment, the main question is: How can we change our life styles to less energy-consuming ones - and use renewable energies more and more - it should be a natural thing!
And even the sweet “baby reactor” produces waste: “After five years of operation (the waste) is approximately the size of a softball and is a good candidate for fuel recycling”, it says on the website you mentioned. “A good candidate” is a rather unsure possiblity, I think.
“do you also have a solution where to store the radioactive waste?”
I’m not an engineer; the companies and nations who operate nuclear power stations do have solutions. Finland has passed a law saying that they have to store all of their own spent nuclear fuel (shipping it abroad would be unethical), so they built a storage facility deep in the bedrock, below ground-water levels, so even if it ever leaks, it will not contaminate drinking water. As I said before, yes, there are risks and dangers that must be addressed.
The “good candidate” thing - I believe it means the kind of waste it produces is easily recycled. That’s how scientists and bureaucrats talk.
The important thing for me is that a big part of the Bulgarian Nuclear Power plant was stopped not because of security, but due to political reasons. Although the reactors are Russian, we have invested many million in improving and modernizing them.
In the past 20 years they’ve had less minor incidents than the best power stations in France, for example. International scientists have evaluated Kozlodui to be one of the most secure in Europe.
The real reason it was stopped was economical reasons - different lobbies had interest in exporting their electricity to our neighboring parties and in building our new “more modern” power station in Belene. They used the fear of Chernobyl accident to force the public opinion.
By the way, most of the publish has no idea what really happened in Chernomyl. All they know is that something Russian blew up and destroyed a lot.
While I still like it, I think there was an mistake close to the beginning of the third paragraph.