Three experts debate a pressing issue. This time:
Text Merel Engelsman
© Photos Sam Rentmeester
The Netherlands can achieve its climate targets without nuclear power.
Erkens “Yes, but it would mean higher energy bills for households and industry. Moreover, the gas crisis caused by the war in Ukraine has demonstrated the value of focussing on different energy sources.”
Haverkamp “Nuclear power delivers too little, too late and comes at too high a cost. Tripling it by 2050 is a pipe dream and will save at most 6% of current CO2 emissions.”
Kloosterman “Solar and wind power will be able to meet half our energy needs by 2050. To become completely CO2-free, we need many options, including nuclear power.”
What about the risks of leaks and accidents?
Kloosterman “That’s not something we have to worry about with thirdgeneration nuclear plants. Adequate measures are taken into account based on the assumption that extreme conditions will occur.”
Erkens “Incidents such as Chernobyl happened due to outdated technology. Modern nuclear power plants are extremely safe and can withstand floods, earthquakes and even a crashing jumbo jet. The installation of wind turbines has resulted in more deaths.”
Haverkamp “The causes of the 25 meltdowns worldwide were not included in the risk analyses. Apart from the threat of war, it’s not wise to have such a large amount of highly toxic, radioactive material in one place.”
Is it realistic to expect a nuclear power plant to last 60 years or more?
Haverkamp “You can upgrade nuclear plants during their lifetime but this increases the risk of accidents. Keeping Borssele open for 10 more years will cost around a billion euros.”
Kloosterman “Borssele was designed for 40 years and has since received a permit for 60 years. This could be even longer with minor updates every two years and major maintenance every 10 years.”
Erkens “Potential manufacturers of new nuclear power plants count on a lifespan of 60 to 80 years, i.e. until after the turn of the century. Borssele will also last at least 70 years.”
Do we need nuclear power to maintain the electricity grid’s reliability?
“Yes, for two reasons. Firstly, because there are long periods when we don’t get enough energy from solar power and wind. We need a stable base system that can be used for that purpose. Future-proofing the electricity grid also involves huge sums of money; the plans up to 2040 assume €195 billion. That amount could be lower if nuclear power was in the mix. You would then not need to develop as much infrastructure compared to when you only have renewable energy.”
“In the 1990s, we calculated what an electricity grid comprised of almost solely renewables should look like. In addition to 80% from solar power and wind, we need the capacity to switch off and on, which comes in the form of sustainable biomass and electricity imports and exports.
And then we have a very small niche for hydrogen. Combined with demand adjustment and short-term and long-term storage options, we can keep this network completely stable. Technically, that’s not the problem. Now all that remains are the corresponding policies.”
“Short-term fluctuations in electricity supply and demand can be met with flexible demand, pricing mechanisms and home and district batteries. We also need to bridge periods when solar power and wind do not produce enough energy over a longer period of time. This can be done through carbon capture from fossil fuels and with nuclear power but we would then have to move to a different cost and revenue system because this capacity will not be needed continuously. And we could use any excess capacity to produce green hydrogen.”
What do we do with the nuclear waste?
“Nuclear waste is a well-known drawback of nuclear power, but we know how to deal with it. To put it into perspective, we are talking about one rubbish bin of highly radioactive waste per year per nuclear power plant. We could burn this in a thorium power plant, for which a small test plant is now being built in North Brabant. We would store whatever remains for a long period. As far as I am concerned, that’s something to do together with other European countries.”
“We send our burnt fuel to France for reprocessing. A small portion of the most hazardous waste is returned and we pass that problem on to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. It’s not at all certain that we can eventually store it safely deep underground. And will France also deal with the plutonium and the huge volume of low and medium-level radioactive waste in the future?”
“Radioactive waste goes to Covra in Vlissingen, where it’s initially stored above ground for a longer period of time. That bunker would have to be expanded if new nuclear power plants are built. This is followed by long-term deep underground storage in layers of clay, for example. We need to properly explain to society how small the associated risks are. And then there is the plutonium. If we have to process that ourselves, molten-salt reactors can be used to completely split it. Dutch startup Thorizon is working on this.”
It’s a complicated, dangerous technology that has become increasingly expensive
Industry does not want to invest in nuclear power plants, so who will pay for it?
“They consider the risk of a future political U-turns too great for such a huge investment, which is understandable. But if the government covers the construction costs, companies would definitely want to start working with nuclear power in the operational phase. In addition, we need to move to another market model for the security of supply offered by nuclear power during shortages of solar and wind power. The same also applies to gas power plants. Without that security, consumers could face huge price spikes.”
“We have been saying for 20 years that policymakers and society should not be distracted by nuclear power. It’s complicated, dangerous technology that has become increasingly expensive.
No company dares to take on that risk anymore. If only because another accident could lead to a political U-turn, as Fukushima did in Germany. Borssele’s shareholders, including some municipalities and the province of Zeeland, also no longer want to bear the risks. So the construction of new nuclear power plants will become a matter for the government.”
“It would seem that the Dutch government will have to bear most, if not all, of the cost for this. To ensure security of supply, the government will have to take much more of a lead in how our energy system is going to look. This includes both policy and financial resources. Because whether it concerns nuclear power plants or fossil fuel options to cover the gaps in our energy supply, or facilities to produce green hydrogen, the business risk is far too great for commercial parties.”
There’s been a lot of talk lately about small reactors, so-called small modular reactors. What do you think about this development?
I like all the developments: molten salt, small reactors, the combination thereof. But new technology can often involve cost overruns and delays. That’s something we cannot afford. They have to be ready by 2035, which is why we will opt for existing technology for those first two major nuclear power plants. We also need to stay plugged-in to all innovations, such as that pilot in North Brabant.
It’s nice that even Hoogeveen and Den Helder are talking about it. But small reactors will not reach the market until 2035 at the earliest and all kinds of useful climate measures will be stopped in the meantime. They are also a lot more expensive per megawatt of energy produced.
It only becomes comparable if a supplier can sell hundreds of them, which I don’t see happening. Much more importantly, small Thorium reactors, for example, are a proliferation nightmare. With a bit of skill, you could harvest plutonium and uranium-233 from it and then make a bomb.
It’s completely understandable that the government is focussing on large light water reactors because they are the only nuclear plants you can buy now. When those are online in 10 years, it will be useful to also deploy smaller light water reactors or molten salt reactors to split the plutonium. At TU Delft, we’re also focussing on very small reactors of 10 to 20 MW. You could use them to relieve the electricity grid locally, such as at an industrial estate. This would save those companies the relatively high transmission costs of electricity.
Do we have sufficient expertise in the Netherlands for procurement, management, staffing and security of new nuclear power plants?
Not yet, but we’re investing heavily in the necessary training. They are struggling with more applications than places, which is completely understandable. Those nuclear power plants will be one of the biggest construction projects in the Netherlands over the next 20 to 30 years. And you’ll be contributing to sustainability and energy independence. If I had to choose a study again, I know what I would do.
We don’t have companies in the Netherlands developing or building nuclear power plants. So we will have to bring in outside people. A lot of people will have to be trained to operate the additional nuclear power plants, which is possible because those plants don’t exist yet. But can you motivate them to take that on when they can already get job security working in renewable energy?
A lot of training is needed and the government is already investing in it. TU Delft has received additional grants and established four new chairs in nuclear technology and we established the Nuclear Academy with NRG and funding from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate. There is also a lot going on in higher and secondary vocational education, such as a minor in nuclear studies in Zeeland. It’s never enough, as there are so many new nuclear initiatives.
At TU Delft, we’re also focussing on very small reactors of 10 MW which you could use to relieve the electricity grid locally
TU Delft offers several courses in nuclear technology.