M an can split the atomic nucleus and thus release energy; this does not lead to CO₂ emissions. That much goes without saying. Sure, the operation of uranium mines or the construction of power plants, so-called “preliminary work”, lead to emissions – in the fossil-dominated age this is still the case. But this also applies to other forms of providing power. Seen in this way, nuclear energy is neutral in terms of its climate effect.
But this is exactly what is being fought for. Why all this? This struggle is only understandable against the historical background – the heated debate is “path-dependent”. In addition, it can only be understood if it is embedded in what it is specifically about: a lot of money.
The energy released by the atomic nucleus when it is split is explosive without moderation – the “chain reaction” is a self-reinforcing process. For civil use in the power plant, the task was to “tame” it, to transform it into a continuous process of electricity generation. It’s like riding on the back of a tiger. If the ride goes wrong, the tiger has struck. Harrisburg, Greifswald, Chernobyl and Fukushima are the examples and signs that have stood before our eyes so far.
The ambiguity of peaceful and explosive use is inscribed in nuclear energy. Nuclear powers need nuclear energy as a “dual use” technology; they use civilian use as a framework for the military provision of explosive devices. This is obvious to the official nuclear weapon states.
It is used as “cover” by those states that are guided by the calculation of civilly developing this technology to such an extent that, in the event of a crisis, autonomous access to nuclear explosive devices can be achieved quickly. West Germany once wanted it that way, but has since refrained from doing it. Japan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Brazil still stand for this strategy of civilian use as an option for military use.
The so-called “civil” use of nuclear energy took a very special path after 1955. Based on a short-sighted economic efficiency calculation, it was put on the path of use in large thermal power plants that feed into existing power grids. Nuclear power plants, with their high investment costs and low fuel costs, were designed as “base load power plants” that run straight, in competition with coal-fired power plants. With their growth in size in order to reap the economies of scale, the nuclear power plants also grew to the monster size of 1,200 megawatts that is common today. The shape of the power grids followed this. In addition, the option of “inherently safe” reactors has been discarded and the decision has been made to open the market to a continuous power plant technology with the light water reactor.
The EU is divided
It was only this risk of catastrophe that made the autonomous, private-sector use of the technology impossible. The state helped, it limited private liability. That is the decisive subsidy for this form of nuclear power use. One looks to Japan to have an idea of how the state will take on risk.
In the meantime, photovoltaic and wind power plants have overtaken combustion power plants economically, in Europe with the support of emissions trading. Their share grows ceaselessly. In use, small power plants set the tone, thanks to the liberalized electricity market design, the hierarchy is clear: The combustion power plants have to deliver the “residual load”. The little ones force the big ones to dynamically drive up and down ramps. The old power plants are hardly equipped for this. They groan about what is expected of them in old age. Often they prefer to pay extra, provoke negative prices in order to be able to stay comfortably in the familiar base load mode. Since this misery for the “old-fashioned” power plant technology is due in the short term to the design of the electricity market, it makes sense to take action here. Within the EU, a phalanx has been formed with this aim.
The fact that the nuclear power plants are lagging behind affects or weighs in particular on the electricity industry in France (Friday 42/2021). As a result, France took the lead, with Greece, Romania, the Czech Republic and Spain on board. On the occasion of the Euro Group meeting at the beginning of October, their finance ministers called for a corresponding reform of the electricity market. The opportunity of the current energy price crisis, which has a strong impact on electricity prices, was used.
The European Union includes the old Euratom Treaty. It says that nuclear power should be promoted. Within the framework of the so-called “taxonomy”, a decision is currently pending within the EU as to whether nuclear energy (for electricity generation) is to be classified as worthy of funding from EU climate protection funds. In addition, EU Europe is divided along the east-west line, with France and Finland on the side of the eastern partners.
In Glasgow, at the World Climate Conference, the global goal of “net zero” is at stake. To this end, the members of the international community must cooperate. This can only succeed if pioneering states want to reduce more than they can from their own territory. To compensate, they have to import either climate-neutral energy sources or compensation certificates. They will also have to pay for being “climate neutral”. So the question to be asked at the current World Climate Conference is whether or not the use of nuclear power in the advance payment of imported products should be included in the “climate-neutral” process. The answer is worth tens of billions.
The physicist Klaus Michael Meyer-Abich once pointed out: If we can rule out the next war, nuclear power plants can also be afforded. As light water reactors, nuclear power plants need a functioning environment for their safety – the Fukushima catastrophe can only be understood against the background of the large-scale failure of external aid options due to the destruction of the tsunami outside the power plant. The world in which Europe is embedded is marching tightly towards a warlike settlement of conflicts. The USA is stuck in the dilemma that it can only achieve the climate goals declared by President Joe Biden if existing nuclear power plants with their known low level of safety remain in operation for a long service life. With critical infrastructures so fragile, the western world is an easy target for malicious adversaries.
.