The future of nuclear is divided into two camps - here’s why
The future of nuclear is divided into two camps - here’s why
In the 1970s, the world economy experienced an energy price shock after major oil producers imposed an embargo against the West for supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War.
As the price of oil increased, energy independence became a priority, and Germany started commissioning more nuclear reactors. By the end of the 1980s, around 29% of Germany’s energy supply came from nuclear.
It took the nuclear disasters in Chernobyl in 1986, which was then part of the Soviet Union, and Fukushima, Japan, in 2011 to shift German public opinion against nuclear energy.
Germany’s decision to end its reliance on nuclear energy made it reliant on Russian pipeline gas.
Even though the country’s anti-nuclear stance waned after Russia invaded Ukraine — which meant it could no longer count on Russian gas — Germany still pressed ahead to close its remaining nuclear reactors by April 2023.
In the U.K., however, the Ukraine war prompted a tighter embrace of nuclear for Britain to achieve its climate goals and improve energy security.
The UK’s first nuclear power station was built in the 1950s, but it was Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who, in the 1980s, proposed constructing a nuclear power station every year for a decade as part of the country’s industrial strategy.
That didn’t happen, but British public opinion, to this day, remains favorable. A study by market research firm YouGov in 2022 showed that almost half of Britons back the use of nuclear energy, compared with 31% who are opposed.
So, why are the two countries moving in different directions? Watch the video above to find out.
#CNBC #NuclearEnergy #NuclearPower #Nuclear
-----
Subscribe: http://cnb.cx/2wuoARM
CNBC International TV: https://cnb.cx/2NGytpz
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/cnbcinternat…
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/cnbcinterna…
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/CNBCi
Content
1.5 -> Germany has closed the last
of its nuclear reactors,
4.56 -> ending the country’s use of nuclear energy.
7.08 -> Just weeks before, the UK government
announced the launch of its Great British Nuclear
12.72 -> plan, which aims to increase the share of nuclear
energy as part of its total energy mix.
18.3 -> So why are the two countries
moving in different directions?
24.06 -> German politicians were not always
opposed to nuclear energy. In the 70s,
28.74 -> the global economy experienced an energy
price shock after major oil producers
33.24 -> imposed an embargo against the West for
supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War.
38.34 -> As the price of oil increased, energy independence
41.46 -> became a priority, and Germany started
commissioning more nuclear reactors.
46.08 -> By the end of the 1980s, around one-third of
Germany’s energy supply came from nuclear.
51.615 -> Initially, opposition to nuclear was
concentrated among student and lobbying groups,
56.46 -> who believed it was at odds with Germany’s
post-war pacifist stance. The Green Party,
61.44 -> which was founded in West Germany in 1980, grew,
64.56 -> in part, out of the anti-nuclear ideology
and subsequent movements that followed.
70 -> Rainer Baake is the former
Germany Energy State Secretary.
73.38 -> There was a small group of people who were
opposing it, and they had some good arguments,
78.54 -> but the majority was on the other side.
And then came the 26th of April, 1986.
85.5 -> The nuclear disaster in Chernobyl – a city
that was then part of the Soviet Union – was,
90.9 -> according to the World Health Organization,
the worst-ever civil nuclear accident.
95.64 -> A poorly designed experiment went
catastrophically wrong – resulting
100.56 -> in a large explosion that released waves
of radioactive waste into the atmosphere.
105.78 -> According to the official count, 31 direct
deaths were associated with the disaster,
110.76 -> but thousands are estimated to have suffered from
the hazardous long-term effects of radioactivity.
116.46 -> It also shifted Germany’s anti-nuclear
stance from the fringes to the mainstream.
122.1 -> Public opinion changed completely. We had
huge majorities for a nuclear phase-out,
128.64 -> but that did not translate into
majorities in our parliament.
132.54 -> That came only in 1998, with
a change of government to social
137.04 -> democratic and green coalition. And at that
point, we decided on the nuclear phase-out.
142.98 -> The German government reached an agreement
with the electric utility companies.
147.123 -> Nuclear power stations were allowed to continue
operating, but with a cap on their output,
151.68 -> and a gradual phase-out of nuclear power
stations over the next two decades.
155.94 -> In December 2011, the German government’s position
on nuclear hardened further, this time after a
162.42 -> nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan. The incident
soured the public’s opinion toward nuclear energy.
168.858 -> A few weeks after the Fukushima disaster,
171 -> then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced
a major U-turn on the country’s nuclear policy
176.52 -> and decided to press ahead to close
all its atomic power plants by 2022
182.1 -> But following Russia’s invasion
of Ukraine at the start of 2022,
186.06 -> Germany considered whether to keep the
last remaining reactors open longer.
190.68 -> German public opinion has shifted notably since
the start of the war. In April that year, a survey
196.2 -> showed that 38% of German citizens supported
the nuclear phase-out by the end of 2022.
201.66 -> Support by the end of the year had
plummeted to 15% as the country was
206.1 -> forced to lean more on highly
polluting coal-powered energy.
210.12 -> So, a compromise was reached
to extend the timeline,
213.24 -> but only by a few months, until April 2023.
216.84 -> Arguably, coal plants are a lot more
environmentally damaging than, say,
221.58 -> using or continue to rely on nuclear
energy as a power source. Why was that
227.1 -> a more palatable option
for German policymakers?
230.22 -> Well, it was an emergency situation
that we had here in Germany after
234.24 -> the attack of Russia on Ukraine and after
Mr. Putin used natural gas as a weapon.
239.4 -> Indeed, we had to bring
additional capacity to the market.
243.06 -> And there was a very
good compromise actually
246.12 -> to move the end of the coal generation
in Germany from 2038 up to 2030.
253.98 -> So, eight years faster. And now for the
next, for the next one or two years,
257.04 -> some coal generators are
gonna run a little bit longer.
260.34 -> This is a huge cut of emissions
if you look at the whole picture.
264.454 -> So short-term pain for
long-term gain, that's the view.
267.941 -> Exactly.
268.919 -> Germany wasn’t the only country debating
its use of nuclear during the energy crisis.
274.08 -> Russia’s invasion of Ukraine forced all European
countries to rethink their energy security.
278.76 -> As key gas pipelines from Russia
got cut off and sanctions kicked in,
283.5 -> it became crucial to find
alternative energy sources.
286.98 -> This meant finding new sources of
natural gas as well as pouring more
291 -> money into renewables
like wind and solar energy.
294.42 -> For the UK, the energy crisis reinforced
its increasing embrace of nuclear to
299.58 -> achieve its climate goals and
ensure greater energy security.
303 -> The UK’s first nuclear power
station was built in the 1950s,
307.2 -> but it was Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
who, in the 1980s, proposed constructing a
312.54 -> nuclear power station every year for a decade
as part of the country’s industrial strategy.
317.34 -> While this was not achieved, public
opinion, to this day, remains favorable.
321.78 -> A study in 2022 showed that
almost half of Britons — 48% —
327.164 -> back the use of nuclear energy
compared to 31% who are opposed.
332.58 -> In March 2023, the Conservative British
government announced that up to a quarter
337.56 -> of the country’s electricity could be generated
from nuclear sources by 2050, up from 15% in 2023.
344.4 -> Supporters of nuclear within the
UK say that it produces low amounts of
348.78 -> carbon as a power source, but it is
more reliable than renewables as
353.22 -> it can provide a steady output
24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
357.24 -> It is also less affected
by extreme weather
359.76 -> conditions and requires less land
to operate compared to renewables.
364.26 -> But the disposal of nuclear waste
remains a key risk as radioactive
368.64 -> waste has a long lifespan and
needs to be stored safely.
371.52 -> Creshia Jones is the nuclear safety case
and licensing lead for Rolls-Royce SMR.
376.98 -> I think the public's perception of nuclear
waste, nuclear, the nuclear industry —
381.774 -> We're the only industry that actually accounts
for every single gram of our nuclear waste.
386.04 -> It's all about how we manage it.
387.66 -> The UK has recognized that the safest
way to manage higher-level waste is
392.94 -> by building a geological disposal facility.
395.64 -> And this is recognized internationally as the
398.82 -> safest way to look after our
higher-level generating waste.
401.82 -> But as I say, that's only 1% of it.
403.92 -> What about the risks of a catastrophic incident?
407.22 -> Obviously, Chernobyl is the one that comes
to mind and weighs on people's sentiment.
411.9 -> Every single nuclear accident
that has happened in the past,
415.62 -> we take all that learning and
that feeds into our safety case.
419.52 -> So, we collaborate internationally with
the industry. We're open, transparent,
425.52 -> and we attend forums and conferences where we
all learn and use what's our best practice.
432.24 -> Detractors of nuclear power also point to its huge
operational and maintenance costs, often meaning
439.26 -> that projects cannot go ahead without significant
backing or subsidies from the government.
443.88 -> Here is Simon James,
senior advisor at Kreab.
447.478 -> Nuclear has a very high capital requirement
for construction. And that can be difficult
454.68 -> for the private sector to bear, which is why
many of them have been built by governments.
460.134 -> Nuclear plants — they're fairly cheap to run. The
expense is in construction and decommissioning.
465.6 -> Decommissioning costs for older
reactors are quite high.
470.88 -> That's largely cause they were
never designed to be taken apart.
474.72 -> Reactors are being designed and built now,
477.96 -> actually have a decommissioning plan
already set out when they're constructed.
483.54 -> Therefore, the decommissioning costs
are much lower for that reason.
487.406 -> Advocates of nuclear energy say that’s where
Small, Modular Reactors — SMRS — come in. These are
493.74 -> nuclear reactors that can be constructed easily.
Crucially, decommissioning costs are paid upfront.
499.8 -> It's a low-cost nuclear solution.
We're not building massive power
504.12 -> plants and using a large area
to do it, which takes years.
507.54 -> As we move towards an increasingly
decarbonized world, the debate
512.04 -> about nuclear continues
to rage within Europe.
514.68 -> The European Commission aims to
cut greenhouse gas emissions by
518.64 -> at least 55% by 2030 and to
be ‘climate neutral’ by 2050.
523.8 -> So, a big debate emerged within
European nations about whether to
528.24 -> lean more on nuclear power as an energy source.
530.82 -> In July 2022, the European Parliament
decided to classify nuclear energy
535.648 -> as a sustainable activity
under certain conditions.
539.369 -> About 12% of the continent’s total
energy supply comes from nuclear,
543.42 -> but the approach varies immensely
from country to country.
547.426 -> In France, for example, about 70% of the
country’s power is generated from nuclear
552.72 -> energy, although many of these reactors were
built in the 50s and are starting to age.
556.993 -> Italy closed all its plants by
1990 despite producing nuclear
561.84 -> energy in the 60s. And Spain plans to
complete its nuclear phase-out by 2035.
566.76 -> By the time we get to 2050, right across
Europe, the electricity will certainly be
571.26 -> nuclear renewables. Some countries will
go for a hundred percent renewables.
575.7 -> Some will go through a mix of renewables and
nuclear, and perhaps some fossil fuels with
580.62 -> carbon capture and storage, if that technology
comes along, which it probably will on some scale.
585.42 -> That is the energy mix we're looking at by 2050.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-5vtRUujRQ