The Russian invasion of Ukraine has escalated the post-pandemic energy shortages into a full-blown energy crisis, catalyzing a sudden and unexpected reversal in the decision to shutter nuclear power plants across the Old Continent. This unforeseen development has charted a course of resurgence for nuclear energy, ushering in new divisions within the European political and economic sphere.

Based on a 2021 report from the European Union (EU), 13 member nations collectively generated an impressive 731,701 gigawatt hours (GWh) of nuclear electricity, constituting over a quarter of the EU’s total electricity production. Leading this nuclear power charge was France, followed closely by Germany, Spain, Sweden, and Belgium, and together these five countries were responsible for an astounding 83 percent of the continent’s nuclear electricity generation. This data underscores the significant variance among EU states in their dependence on nuclear energy, highlighting a clear division in both legislation and activist sentiments

Different Energy Policies

Amidst Europe’s dual challenges of energy and climate crises, the role of nuclear power remains a contentious issue. France, a leader in nuclear energy, is contemplating legislation to expedite the construction of new reactors, even as they continue to undergo rigorous safety assessments. Against the backdrop of an energy crisis precipitated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, French President Macron’s vocal support for nuclear power stands as a clear bid for energy independence. Furthermore, it is a reminder of the energy source that has enabled France to partially fulfill some of Europe’s ambitious decarbonization goals, distinguishing it from other EU member states.

The electricity market structure has constantly been influenced by political tendencies, with numerous parties recently pushing for more renewable sources to embrace the EU’s green policies. While some countries, like France, have found the solution in nuclear power, others have considered it more of a risk than it is worth. Germany’s last power plants, Isar 2, Emsland, and Neckarwestheim 2, were shut down in April despite soaring energy prices and fears of a cold and expensive winter ahead. “Nuclear power is at its end – it is not used in Germany any longer; the exit has been legally conducted,” stressed Germany’s chancellor Olaf Scholz. 

However, a notable shift is underway in Italy, where Transport Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini made a significant announcement on September 3 regarding his intent to accelerate the development of nuclear- based energy production. Italy’s history with nuclear power is marked by its abolition as an energy source in a 1987 referendum, leading to the closure of multiple nuclear power plants. Notably, this referendum did not impose any bans, and there is no requirement to conduct another one to advance new plant construction; a standard legislative measure outlining a national energy plan suffices for this purpose. “I anticipate that by 2023, this government will possess the resolve to elucidate to the Italian populace why, in the pursuit of technological neutrality, we should not dismiss any energy source,” stated Salvini.

Security Concerns

Nuclear energy continues to stir debate, both in Europe and around the globe. Recent developments highlight the issue’s prominence, notably Japan’s plan to release treated wastewater used to cool the Fukushima reactor. In South Korea, despite government assurances and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safety checks, public fear has caused a surge in sea salt demand, with majority opposition to the plan and protests at the Japanese embassy.

In contrast to the mounting concerns among citizens and governments, however, a novel form of pro-nuclear activism is gaining traction across multiple member states; the movement champions heightened scientific comprehension of the advantages and drawbacks of nuclear power. An example comes fromThe Guardian, which featured the story of an 18-year-old climate activist contesting Greenpeace’s anti-nuclear stance. Meanwhile, entire enterprises and organizations are expanding their outreach, exemplified by L’Avvocato dell’Atomo, an Italian activist group committed to disseminating their perspective on nuclear energy through the publication of books, articles, and videos.

A Talk With Pro-Nuclear Activists

To gain a clearer understanding of their ideas, The Granite Tower (GT) interviewed Luca Romano, founder of the organization.

Q1: Could you explain the term “radiophobia”? Do you think the general population is aware of the risks and benefits of nuclear energy?

Romano: Radiophobia indicates an irrational fear of ionizing radiation as the cause of diseases related to nuclear technology. It is difficult to determine the diffusion of the phenomenon exactly, but we know that some of its consequences are indeed concerning. For instance, there have been cases of individuals refusing certain diagnostic treatments due to the use of ionizing radiations. Although information about the benefits of nuclear energy is increasingly aligning with the opinion of the scientific community, this different perception of risk has yet to be addressed by the mass media.

Q2: Do you think that nuclear energy is the only viable option in Europe’s carbon neutral energy mix? What are the biggest disadvantages of other green energy sources?

Romano: The issue of replacing fossil fuels in all energy sectors is enormous and must be addressed from multiple angles. Renewable energy sources have an important role to play; however, they also present a series of challenges that prevent them from replacing fossil sources without robust integration from nuclear energy. Concerning hydroelectric and geothermal sources, there is a clear issue of geographical availability; while for solar and wind energy, problems are linked to managing intermittency, which not only causes obvious supply issues but also needs careful consideration.

Q3: How could we handle significantly larger quantities of radioactive waste?

Romano: The energy density of uranium is millions of times higher than that of fossil fuels. This means that even if we were to use nuclear power to replace the entire global production of energy from oil, coal, and gas, we would have to manage every year a few hundred thousand tons of spent fuel, compared to the tens of billions of tons of CO2 and pollutants that we currently release into the atmosphere annually. Qualitatively speaking, spent nuclear fuel is solid, making it easier to store than liquid or gaseous waste, and its radioactivity decays over time.