It has been a few days since the elections here in the Netherlands, and an extensive discussion topic during the campaigns was the role of nuclear energy in the Dutch energy transition. Throughout the campaigns, I have often heard the argument that nuclear energy is a sustainable energy source. However, I know this is not true and has probably been derived from the fact that nuclear energy production does not emit GHGs. I do not think nuclear energy is sustainable because of the not-so-environmentally friendly practice of mining for uranium. What do you think about nuclear energy as a reliable option for the Dutch energy transition? Also, the CBS (Dutch statistics agency) states that 41% of energy in the Netherlands is from renewable sources, which I think is important to consider.
According to the IAEA and World Nuclear Energy, the Netherlands is undergoing a significant energy transition, aiming for a rapid transition to a low-carbon economy. The 2019 Climate Act targets reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 49% by 2030 and 95% by 2050 (versus 1990 levels). The country’s energy and climate policy focuses on bringing down greenhouse gas emissions.
Nuclear power has a small role in the Dutch electricity supply, with the Borssele reactor providing about 3% of total generation. In May 2018, the government announced a draft law for phasing out coal-fired generation. Two of five plants will close before 2025, and the other three will close before 2030.
The environmental impact of nuclear energy in the context of the Netherlands’ energy transition can be considered from several perspectives:
Nuclear energy is often not classified as a renewable energy source because it relies on uranium and similar fuel sources, which are finite. However, some people consider nuclear energy renewable because new technologies and elements like thorium may provide practically inexhaustible fuel sources needed to power nuclear reactors.
Regarding climate change, nuclear energy production does not release greenhouse gases, so it is a low-carbon fuel. This has led some to argue that, while not renewable in the traditional sense, nuclear energy should be considered part of the solution to climate change.
However, it’s important to note that ‘renewable’ energy typically refers to energy from constantly replenished sources, like the water for hydroelectric dams or the sunlight for solar panels. In this sense, nuclear energy is not renewable because it uses radioactive fuel. This could be changed with the new type of nuclear power reaction and the SMRs.
In conclusion, while nuclear energy could technically play a role in the Netherlands’ energy transition due to its low carbon emissions and high energy output, waste management, economic factors, and public acceptance play a crucial role in determining its feasibility and
desirability. The decision to use nuclear energy for electricity generation should be adopted based on economic and technical grounds and not using political arguments.
Thank you for responding.
If the Netherlands wants to include nuclear energy in the national energy transition and the path to GHG neutrality, it will be important to investigate the environmental impact from cradle to gate. The different perspectives you include are important when considering sustainable development. Because, maybe regretfully, nuclear energy has already become a political issue, it is important to keep decision-makers informed.
In this context, the term renewable energy would be better than sustainability. I am not advocating if nuclear energy should be classified as such or on the same list as depletable energy sources. I think there should be more public awareness and information on the life cycle of nuclear energy.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism