Huge upfront costs, radiation and waste disposal issues, and memories of terrible accidents have all contributed to Europe’s reluctance to adopt nuclear power in recent decades.
But the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz amid the US-Iran war has exposed the continent’s vulnerability to disrupted energy imports – and nuclear energy could provide Europe with a lifeline.
IEA chief Fatih Birol previously told CNBC that the supply crisis would give nuclear power a “boost” and urged governments to increase their resilience with alternative energy sources.
Nuclear power produces significantly fewer emissions than fossil fuels, plants take up minimal space on the landscape, and reactors are extremely reliable in all weather conditions.
“I think nuclear has to play a big role in solving this problem for Europe,” Chris Seiple, vice president of Wood Mackenzie’s power and renewables division, told CNBC.
The US, China and France are better placed to deal with supply shocks caused by war, partly because they are the three largest producers of nuclear energy worldwide.
“If you don’t have a natural energy supply, your energy costs will be higher to import it from somewhere, or you’ll have to build some degree of nuclear,” Michael Brown, global investment strategist at Franklin Templeton, told CNBC.
“It is expensive but very efficient, as France has shown. French energy prices are much lower than German prices.”
EDF nuclear plant in France.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | getty images
France is Europe’s leading child in space, with more than 60% of its energy needs met by nuclear energy.
More countries are taking action. According to its Climate Minister Kim Sung-hwan, the Iran war is “serving as a turning point” for South Korea to move away from oil toward alternatives.
In an interview with CNBC’s Lisa Kim, Sung-hwan said that nuclear and renewable energy will form the “two central pillars” of future energy supply.
This raises questions about whether other European countries such as the UK and Germany, which have been shutting down most reactors for decades, will build up their nuclear capacities to provide more insulation against future energy supply shocks.
a long term view
Analysts see a strong argument for increasing the prominence of nuclear power as a key component of the energy strategy of European countries.
According to Eurostat data, by 2025, nuclear energy will account for just 11.8% of Europe’s total energy mix, while oil and gas will still account for more than a third.
“The easiest way to ensure energy security is to diversify our sources,” Adnan Shihab-Eldin, senior visiting research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, told CNBC.
“The mistake made by Germany and many other European countries was that they put ideology in the first place, assuming that nuclear energy was bad.”
However, it can take decades to get plants up and running. The UK’s Hinkley Point C – poised to become its first nuclear reactor in more than 30 years – began work in 2016 and is not expected to be completed until the end of the decade.
It will provide electricity to 6 million people and supply 7% of the country’s electricity.
Flamanville 3 in France, due to open in 2024, took 17 years to come online.
“By the time the nuclear plants commissioned today actually come online, the energy landscape may look very different,” Chris Aylett, research fellow at the Center for Environment and Society at Chatham House, told CNBC. “Renewable projects can also run much faster.”
According to Wood Mackenzie’s Seiple, the key to success in European nuclear projects is to find a cheaper way to build – and that could mean relying on cheap technology from China.
“Outside the US and Europe, the rest of the world has found a way to build cost-competitive nuclear facilities,” he said.
“It’s a matter of regulation and building the workforce to support it.”
However, cooperation seems impossible.
“In theory, it could be cheaper and faster to work with Chinese companies to produce nuclear power in Europe, but given security and concerns about losing strategic industries, it seems like a political non-starter,” Chatham House’s Aylett said.
public perceptions
The two most devastating nuclear disasters in history – Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011 – each tarnished the technology in the public eye, prompting politicians to shut down projects.
But according to Aylett, Europe’s second energy crisis in four years could change public attitudes.
“Nuclear is seen as a ‘domestic’ source of energy because its supply chain is not as exposed to geopolitical turmoil and price shocks as oil and gas are,” he said.
“The political environment is clearly more favourable, with governments in and across Europe reconsidering previous moratoriums and pledging to promote nuclear energy.”
But Shihab-Eldin said the task of preparing future generations to deal with the nuances of the nuclear debate is “not for the faint of heart.”
“You can’t just go in and out – it needs to bring education back, because only with education will the public support the politicians, and the politicians will answer to the public.”
