Ukraine-Russia War Update: US military leaders meet allies in Germany

Construction is a full decade Slow progress and 12 billion euros, or 13 billion dollars, over budget. Plans to start operations this year have been pushed back again, to 2024. And Flamanville’s problems are not unique. Finland’s newest nuclear power plant, started operating last monthis said to have been completed in 2009.

As of President Vladimir V. Putin war in Ukraine push Europe to cut off its dependency Regarding Russia’s oil and natural gas, the nuclear power profile is growing, promising home-grown energy as well as a reliable source of electricity.

Proponents of nuclear energy can help resolve the power crisis that exists in Europe, complement a spindle was underway before the war to adopt solar, wind and other renewable technologies to meet ambitious climate change goals.

“Putin’s invasion has redefined our energy security considerations in Europe,” said Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency. He added, “I hope that nuclear can provide a setback in Europe and elsewhere due to energy insecurity.”

But making a nuclear revival a reality is fraught with problems.

The dash to find ready alternatives to Russian fuel has been exaggerated a political split in Europe on nuclear energy, as a bloc of nuclear countries led by France, Europe largest atom producer, promoting accumulation while Germany and other like-minded countries opposed it, citing the dangers of radioactive waste. A recent plan by the European Commission to explicitly reduce dependence on Russia remove nuclear power from the list of the energy sources considered.

Protracted delays and cost overruns have plagued the massive Flamanville-3 project, a state-of-the-art pressurized water reactor designed to produce 1,600 megawatts of energy that is emblematic of the challenges. The broader technical knowledge, logistics and costs faced by the expansion.

One a quarter of the total electricity in the European Union comes from nuclear power produced in dozens of countries from an aging fleet, most of which were built in the 1980s. France, with 56 reactors, produces more than half of the total. number.

A fleet of up to 13 new-generation nuclear reactors planned in France, using a design different from the one at Flamanville, won’t be ready until at least 2035 – too late to make a difference. especially during the current energy crisis.

Across the channel, Britain recently announced its ambition to have eight new nuclear plants, but the reality is more serious. Five of Britain’s six existing reactors are expected to be shut down within a decade because of age, while there is only one new nuclear stationa long-delayed French-led giant valued at £20 billion in Hinkley Point in south-west England, under construction. Its first installment is expected to be released online in 2026.

Others that are being considered to be in Eastern Europe will not appear online before 2030.

“The nuclear process is going to take a lot of time” as projects take at least 10 years to complete, said Jonathan Stern, a senior research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

“The big problem is Russian gas extraction, and that’s the problem now – not in a decade, when maybe we’ll have built another generation of nuclear reactors,” he added. .

Proponents say nuclear power could be a solution if the political will is there.

The Belgian government, in agreement with the country’s Green party, reverse a decision phasing out nuclear power by 2025 and extending the life of two reactors by a decade as Russia stepped up its attack on Ukraine last month. This energy will help Belgium avoid dependence on Russian gas as it builds renewable energy sources, including wind turbines and solar fields, to meet Europe’s climate goals. in 2035.

“The invasion of Ukraine was a life-changer,” Belgium’s Energy Minister, Tinne Van der Straeten, said last week, explaining the government’s move. “We want to reduce imports from Russia.”

But in Germanywhich depends more than any other European country on Russian gas and coal, the idea of ​​using nuclear power to narrow an energy crisis seems to be going nowhere.

Germany is scheduled to close its last three nuclear plants by the end of the year, the final chapter in a program that lawmakers have passed to phase out the country’s fleet of 17 reactors in the wake of the disaster. nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan in 2011.

Two of Germany’s largest energy companies have said they are willing to postpone the shutdown to help reduce the country’s dependence on Russia. But the Greens, part of the ruling coalition in Berlin, have ruled out continuing to operate them – not to mention reopening three nuclear stations that closed in December.

“We have decided for reasons that I think are very good and right that we want to get rid of them,” Prime Minister Olaf Scholz told Parliament this month, adding that the idea of ​​a delay Germany’s withdrawal from nuclear power “is not a good plan”.

Even in countries that see nuclear power as a valuable option, a range of barriers stand in the way. “It’s not going to happen overnight,” said Mark Hibbs, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

President Emmanuel Macron’s plan for nuclear power renaissance in France envisions a wave of new generation nuclear reactors large and small with an estimated starting price of €50 billion ($57 billion) – a staggering cost that other European countries cannot or will not perform. Construction won’t be quick, he admits, in part because the industry also needs to train a new generation of nuclear engineers.

“Most governments push and push, and even when they start building, it takes a long time,” said Mr Stern of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. “All these other technologies are advancing rapidly and they’re all getting cheaper and cheaper, while the kernel isn’t evolving and it’s getting more and more expensive.”

Meanwhile, many of France’s aging reactors, built to exercise energy independence after the oil crisis of the 1970s, have been halted for safety checks, leaving nuclear power behind. France is unlikely to help advance Russia’s energy squeeze, says Anne-Sophie Corbeau of the Center for Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.

“Nuclear production will fall in France this year unless you find a magic solution, but there is no magic solution,” she said.

However, Moscow’s aggression could help reverse what was once an arc of gradual industry decline.

There has been a string of upbeat statements lately. In addition to this month’s UK announcement to expand nuclear capacityThe Netherlands, with a reactor, has a plan build two more to supplement solar, wind and geothermal energy.

And in Eastern Europe, several countries hiding in Russia’s shadow have been planning to build fleets of nuclear reactors – a move that advocates say appeared premeditated in the wake of Russia’s invasion. Ukraine.

NuScale Power, an Oregon company selling a new reactor design that it claims will be cheaper and faster to build because key components will be assembled at plants, has signed preliminary agreements. ministries in Romania and Poland.

The Russian invasion has reinforced “their desire to see nuclear as part of their total energy portfolio,” said Tom Mundy, the company’s chief commercial officer.

CEO Cosmin Ghita said Nuclearelectrica is pushing both a NuScale plant and two Canadian reactors to go along with a pair of nuclear facilities that generate about 20 percent of the country’s electricity.

“The Ukraine crisis has certainly shown us the need to strengthen energy security,” said Ghita. “We’re gaining more traction on our projects.”

Meike Becker, a utility analyst at Bernstein, a research firm, says that in the long run, Russia’s war has the potential to “help the European idea” become more energy independent.

“That’s what nuclear can do,” she added.

Liz Alderman reported from Paris, and Stanley Reed from London.