Belgium had planned to abandon all nuclear power by 2025. That is, until Russia invaded Ukraine, prompting Energy Minister Tinne Van der Straeten to convene a restricted ministerial meeting at 16 rue de la Loi in March of 2022.
What was the purpose of this hasty conference?
To reconsider the decommissioning of the last two nuclear plants operating in Belgium. This meeting resulted in the government’s decision to postpone the end of Belgian nuclear by an additional 10 years:
“The federal government will take the necessary measures to extend the life of the Doel 4 and Tihange 3 nuclear power plants by ten years”
stated the official press release.
Once the Council of Ministers granted their approval, the Belgian government signed a deal with the French energy group Engie on June 29th 2022 to extend the life of the two plants.
Belgium relies significantly on nuclear energy which contributes about 50% of its electricity supply. The country operates seven reactors, primarily at the Doel and Tihange sites, making nuclear a key part of its energy mix.
Brussels was prompted to delay its planned nuclear exit by the Russian invasion of Ukraine; Minister Van der Straeten’s decision to keep plants operational reflects the scramble amongst European nations to secure alternatives to Russian energy exports.
“This agreement is important for our energy future and for Belgian households,”
Prime Minister Alexander De Croo said in an endorsement.
“It strengthens our electricity supply, reduces our country’s energy dependence and guarantees the production in Belgium of low-carbon and cheap electricity.”
Despite the tragic catalyst, many nuclear energy advocates in Belgium and abroad were elated by the announced delay in the government’s planned decommission. The anti-nuclear movement in Belgium is a specific instance of a broader global phenomenon which has gained momentum since nuclear energy and nuclear weapons were conflated after apocalyptic payloads levelled Hiroshima.
As nuclear power continues to contribute the largest share of the electricity produced domestically in Belgium, now more than ever we must understand why nuclear energy is the most clean, reliable, and economical source of energy currently available.
Let’s examine why Belgium – and the world – should embrace nuclear energy.
Nuclear Energy preserves air quality
Have you noticed that nuclear energy is always excluded from clean energy discussions? You’ll hear about wind turbines and solar panels, but rarely nuclear reactors.
It is empirically dishonest to exclude nuclear power from consideration. Why? It is second only to hydropower as the world’s largest source of low-carbon electricity. This invites us to ask – how clean is nuclear energy?
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe has classified nuclear a zero-emission clean energy source which generates power through fission, a process that splits uranium atoms to release energy. The heat produced from fission is used to create steam, which drives a turbine to generate electricity, all while avoiding the harmful emissions associated with fossil fuels.
US Navy Commander Rod Adams noted that
“a fuel pellet the size of the tip of my pinky has as much energy as a ton of coal. The Uranium to make that pellet cost a few bucks. A ton of coal costs around $100 USD. A huge difference. And nuclear operates so cleanly you can do it underwater with 150 people sealed up in a ship with their powerplant running.”
Nuclear power also keeps the air clean by eliminating thousands of tons of harmful pollutants each year, which are linked to acid rain, smog, lung cancer, and cardiovascular disease.
As an example, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) reported that American nuclear energy production in 2020 prevented over 471 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions—equivalent to taking 100 million cars off the road, surpassing the emissions reductions from all other clean energy sources combined.
While not without environmental concerns, nuclear energy produces minimal greenhouse gas emissions during operation, making it a stable option for reducing carbon footprints compared to fossil fuels.
Minimal land use
A significant amount of carbon-free electricity is generated by nuclear energy whilst needing less land than any other source of clean energy.
Just over 2.5 square kilometers is required for a standard 1000-megawatt nuclear plant. Let’s compare this to the two most popular forms of renewable energy – wind and solar. To produce the same amount of electricity, a wind farm would require 360 times more land, and a solar photovoltaic installation would require 75 times more space.
To illustrate, it would take over 3 million solar panels or more than 430 wind turbines (not factoring in capacity) to match the output of a typical commercial nuclear reactor.
Nuclear Energy produces minimal waste
Nuclear fuel is incredibly dense – about 1 million times more so than traditional energy sources. As a result, the amount of used nuclear fuel is smaller than you might assume. As an example, the NEI reports that all used fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry over the past 60 years could fit on a football pitch at a depth of less than 9 meters. What most anti-nuclear activists will never mention is that nuclear waste can be readily reprocessed for repeat use as reactor fuel.
Baffling in light of this, the Belgian government placed a moratorium on nuclear reprocessing in 1993, preventing a fuel continuity that other nuclear-centric European nations such as France enjoy. Even after half a decade within an operational reactor, around 90% of the unexpended energy within this nuclear fuel remains available for use.
Prior to the parliamentary suspension of nuclear reprocessing, 670 tons of spent fuel from Belgium’s commercial reactors were reprocessed in La Hague, France, and reused within Belgian reactors. Despite it being clear that the minimal waste created by fission can be recycled, regretfully, Belgium no longer engages in this practice.
The Reliability of Nuclear Energy
Nuclear power plants provide a steady, continuous output of electricity, often referred to as “baseload.” Unlike many renewable sources, like solar and wind, which can be intermittent, nuclear plants operate at high capacity for long periods. Nuclear energy is also extremely fuel efficient. A small amount of Uranium, the typical fuel for nuclear energy production, allows a plant to run for long periods without needing frequent refueling.
The advanced technology of modern reactor designs also equips plants with multiple safety features and improved efficiency. Innovations in reactor design, such as small modular reactors (SMRs), promise even greater reliability and safety.
Nuclear plants are also less affected by weather conditions or seasonal changes, allowing them to provide reliable power regardless of external factors. Nuclear reactors are also built to last several decades, with many existing plants successfully extending their operational life through upgrades and maintenance.
These factors make nuclear energy a dependable component of a balanced energy mix, especially as Belgium transitions toward more sustainable energy sources.
The Superior Economics of Nuclear Energy
Once a nuclear power plant is built, its operating and maintenance costs are relatively low compared to fossil fuel plants. Nuclear plants require less fuel and have predictable costs. As stated above, nuclear fuel is also extremely energy-dense, meaning a small amount can produce great quantities of energy. This reduces transportation and storage costs compared to fossil fuels.
Nuclear power plants have long lifespans, often exceeding 40 years, which allows for the amortization of high initial construction costs over many years of operation. Nuclear fuel prices are also generally more stable compared to the fluctuating prices of fossil fuels, providing predictable energy costs.
Nuclear energy reduces dependence on imported fossil fuels, enhancing energy security and potentially stabilizing energy prices in the long run. Overall, while the initial investment for nuclear plants can be high, their long-term economic benefits often make them a highly competitive option in the energy market.
Belgium’s Nuclear Future
Belgium’s first commercial nuclear power plant came online in 1974. Up until this day there have been no known fatalities related to nuclear accidents in Belgium, and the leading Flemish National Anti-Nuclear Energy Archive (LAKA) lists 22 minor nuclear incidents across Belgium’s nuclear plants during this time.
Only a single event was categorized as an “accident” from this era; a single worker accidentally exposed himself to a brief dose of high radiation, from which he has since fully recovered. Belgium maintains strict safety regulations for its nuclear facilities, overseen by the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC), to ensure high safety standards are met.
It should not have taken a war for Minister Van der Straeten to preserve nuclear power in Belgium’s energy mix. Nor should this minor reversal be temporary. As a member of the Green (i.e. Groen) Party, a core component of her ministerial mandate is to minimize greenhouse gas emissions in response to the increasing threat of climate change. In 2021 the IPCC stated,
“if we do not cut carbon emission by 100% in less than 30 years, by 2050 the world would suffer serious damage to ecosystems and economies.”
Humankind is internationally dependent on fossil fuels for producing electricity, and the majority of global power comes from burning coal and gas. Worse yet, this dependence lags behind an increasingly exponential energy demand as more of the international population modernizes and expands its power-dependent infrastructure.
The quantity of carbon-free electricity required over the next 50 years is nearly incalculable; conservative attempts have placed the estimated need between 2 – 4 times the electricity we currently use on Earth. How can the Belgian government create exponentially more electricity whilst still cutting CO2 emissions to assist with the global climate crisis without nuclear energy?
It’s time to reconsider the facts of nuclear energy, examine the historical context of nuclear fear, dispel groundless concerns weaponized by anti-nuclear factions, and empirically verify the superiority of nuclear energy. If you are a citizen of the EU, I encourage you to contact your local political representative to advocate for nuclear energy production. If you are a Belgian citizen, please reach out to Minister Tinne Van der Straeten to express your disagreement with Belgium’s planned exit from nuclear power.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
