(12ag) Nuclear energy, or not? That is the question.

In Belgium, a serious discussion was happening about whether nuclear power stations should remain open for many more years, and now politicians and the public are convinced that two reactors should remain open to have sufficient cheap electricity, certainly after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia when energy prices became very expensive and nearly unpayable for even middle-class people but also for companies. Employers organisations are happy, others are not as the others highlight possible risks and certain costs to continue nuclear energy. Also the CEO of Engie Electabel warned it will not be easy to keep two nuclear plants open beyond their current expiring date, partly because they need reparations to continue to work safely. Still, the Belgian government reached a pre-deal with Engie to keep the nuclear reactors running for another 10 years, although Engie first need to check whether this is possible.

Sign to indicate radioactivity

The Belgian government, supported by the Energy Commission of the Belgian Parliament, negotiates with the French company Engie that became owner of the Belgian nuclear power stations after the Belgian government sold the electricity company Electabel to Engie. The government claims certain conditions should be met such as the cost of the disposal of the radioactive waste must be borne by Engie and not by the Belgian public. But, the government also admits negotiations are tough and asked opposition political parties not to complicate negotiations by speaking publicly, as that weakens the negotiation position of the Belgian government. Still, I think Engie will be a winner whereby the Belgian government will agree to pay part of the disposal of the nuclear waste and of the demolition of the nuclear reactors after their closure as already requested by Engie because the total cost is estimated to be 41 billion euro by 2135, showing nuclear energy is very expensive; indeed, a historic cost to be paid by today's and future generations. And keeping nuclear reactors working cost money; in the USA the Biden administration agreed to pay 1 billion dollar to keep California's nuclear power plant open. Thus, why may Engie win in Belgium?

Engie knows that Belgians are now convinced that nuclear energy is essential for cheap electricity production, while Engie has a partner in the biggest political party in Belgium, i.e. the N-VA (Nieuwe Vlaamse Alliantie or New Flemish Alliance) but also in the Walloon MR (Mouvement Réformateur) - both parties signed a deal to reverse in parliament the law that enforces the closure of nuclear reactors. Maybe Engie even thinks that the N-VA within local governments refused permissions to build gas burners to help the nuclear case. These burners should generate electricity during scarcity when the production of clean energies is low such as during high electricity usage during windless periods with lots of clouds when energy production from both windmills and solar panels will be low; indeed, these burners can be switched on and off according the need for electricity while nuclear reactors work continuously to be efficient. Green energy can be cheap. Of course, when nuclear reactors remain active, than clean energy sources such as solar panels and wind turbines on houses and companies are in direct competition with electricity created by the industry, while clean energy sources also empower ordinary people and companies. 

What many people don't want to hear as it comes from green politicians is that a network of cables is being build between different EU countries, and further away, so when one country produces too little electricity, electricity can be imported from another country that produces an excess, unless in that region we have the same bad weather (cloudy and not much wind) so there is insufficient clean electricity production throughout that region. Therefore, also small scale production of energy by water should be taken into the picture. And as I mentioned, energy production sides that can work in case of scarcity.

At the same time, there is serious opposition against electricity cables that will bring electricity inland from windmill parks that are built before the Belgian coast. Thus, without gas power burners and cables to transport green electricity, all the policies of the green parties seem worthless. Strange because opposition against nuclear power reactors and their electricity cables is weaker, although these plants can result in a major problem in case of a nuclear accident, whereby in comparison the PFOS contamination in Flanders is negligible as whole regions may become uninhabitable - remember, already nuclear reactors were closed for a longer period because of cracks in the buildings, although some experts claim the reactors remain safe. Still, even Engie repeats that the nuclear power plants are ageing whereby concrete degradation was observed in a number of its nuclear power stations that required reparations and need more maintenance to be safe, costs I fear also the Belgian government will need to pay (partly), and thus all Belgians. It is not only in Belgium, also in France and the UK (with images of cracks), ageing nuclear reactors are closed to restore cracks as nothing last for eternity.

To be honest, I am not in favour of fossil gas burners but instead for bio-fuel power stations that can burn wood and other natural sources but also use gases produced in the farming and other industries so it will really be net zero emissions, although recently people were not allowed to burn wood in their stove because it is too polluting, but new technologies should be able to reduce the pollution. For instance, each year in Brussels, branches are cut from trees that are grinded and then scattered between trees and plants to reduce the growth of weeds, while I think this can be dangerous during dry hot summers as it can burn. Therefore, this wood may be used to produce energy in bio-fuel power stations while the ashes can be scattered as fertilizer between plants. Other sources are also possible such as anaerobic decomposition. 

Further, also certain impossible to recycle waste can be burned in incinerators during energy scarcity so it produces energy while, when sufficient energy is produced, the waste can be stored temporarily until energy is needed. 

Finally, all kinds of batteries, including hydrogen batteries and batteries that are part of equipment such as television and lights, can store energy generated during periods of large energy production. 

Green, and by extension the Belgian government think they will be able to demand that Engie will bare the costs of reopening and storage of the highly radioactive material. Engie refuses as it knows Belgium is begging that the nuclear reactors remain open while Belgium's largest political party N-VA, together with the MR support Engie; in addition, as mentioned higher, the cost is such that even companies will have difficulties to pay it over at least a period of hundred year. Therefore, I think the Belgian government will have to give in although will claim they reached a good deal. Then the N-VA (who didn't keep the nuclear reactors open when they were part of the previous government) can claim it is a bad deal with a high cost, while with the N-VA in power there would have been a better deal. And thus, although I may be wrong, the Green may lose at the next election because people who voted Green in the hope nuclear power reactors would finally close will be disappointed with the U-turn by the Green, just at a moment when the reactors become unsafe. Others will be angry with the cost and look for the N-VA (and MR) who claim they may have negotiated a better deal. In the end, the deal may keep the nuclear reactors open for longer whereby Belgian/Flemish money will flow to France. Unless Flanders (or Belgium) manages to co-invest in new Dutch nuclear energy stations, although the tradition is that only France can be a partner of Belgium. 

Thus, nuclear energy is expensive to build the power station and later to maintain the buildings that needs to withstand very high temperatures, including when they are older, whereby sufficient cold water needs to be available to cool the reactors or face problems. Further, we need to store the nuclear waste, some for thousands of years. The real cost is only now becoming public while Engie will not like more government campaigns to encourage people to invest in renewable energy as money needs to be earned to pay back the investments, although campaigns to buy more equipment that uses electricity may be welcomed. Thus, I fear everyone will have to pay the electricity bill, even when the nuclear sector will close the reactors immediately as decided years ago, because of a continuing cost to dismantle the buildings and store the nuclear waste. Germany already knows the costs of dismantling nuclear reactors. Also the UK knows the cost as it dismantles the nuclear site at Sellafield whereby the interesting podcast (or text) informs that to dismantle nuclear reactors, you have to prevent they fall apart. As a result, the cost is huge, at least 121 billion pound.

But, if nuclear is the direction Belgium and its federal states want to move forward, it be so as in democracies the majority decides. As now a pre-deal allows Engie to investigate the extension of the nuclear reactors, when possible this will be difficult to revert this decision. But after a new 10 years period, I think clean energy production should be mature as the nuclear reactors will be another 10 years older.

Am I completely against nuclear? While in the past I was in favour of nuclear reactors to produce electricity, Chernobyl in Ukraine and Fukushima in Japan that is still ongoing years after the disaster as radioactive water may be released in the Pacific Ocean, showed that nuclear energy can be disastrous when things go wrong, certainly when nuclear energy plants are ageing as they do in Europe. Also recently there were fears about nuclear reactors in by Russia occupied Ukraine. And don't forget that radioactivity can be used as a poison, or worse as a weapon that can kill thousands in cities. Thus, as I know this, I came to the conclusion nuclear energy production is too risky and expensive in a time when new developments result in cleaner energy production and products that use less energy.

Future use of radioactivity

But, radioactivity will continue to be used such as in nuclear medicines although scientists try to find safer alternatives that target illnesses such as cancer more specifically and with fewer side-effects for the whole body. 

In addition, as fossil fuels are difficult to transport into space to produce energy, nuclear energy may be used to power space hotels whereby the heat production can be used to warm the hotel and produce electricity for the comfort of people in the space hotel but also to maintain a rotation that is sufficient to create gravity so people can walk around instead of float whereby not water but the very cold outer space may be used to cool down the very hot nuclear reactor. Finally, when something goes wrong, people on Earth may be in shock for a few days, but at least most radioactivity will spread in outer space, and not on Earth. So, I think nuclear energy has its future use, but I think more outside planet Earth.