We are talking about nuclear energy again

A test balloon. Unrealistic. And finally! VVD party leader Klaas Dijkhoff was able to make the day's nuclear energy talk in the House of Representatives and beyond. His proposal to quickly start construction of a new nuclear power plant was immediately supported and criticized.

Nevertheless, there is little chance that a new center is being created soon. The coalition parties D66 and ChristenUnie are against it. They are worried about the nuclear waste that future generations are suffering. But another objection is even more important: the construction of a nuclear power plant is expensive. Soon 10 billion euros. Without government funding, no business will likely be interested in building a power plant. And even though companies report risks, nuclear power plants currently under construction in countries such as France and the United Kingdom cost billions of euros more than originally planned.

It is precisely for this reason that the CDA coalition party is also cautious. The party agrees with the VVD that nuclear energy can be one of the sources of energy in 2050, in addition to wind and solar energy. A nuclear power plant does not emit CO ₂ but gas and coal power plants emit it. But before 2030, Agnes Mulder, member of the CDA, does not see it happen. "I understand that the VVD wants to restart the discussion, we also believe that nuclear energy is part of the final energy mix, but for now, the construction of a nuclear power plant is very expensive." [19659002WhyisDijkhoffnowpresentinghisplan?BusinessesinterestgroupsandgovernmentshavebeennegotiatingaclimatedealforaboutsevenmonthsThisagreementistobeinforceinDecemberandleadtoahalvingofCO ₂ in 2030. This means that the Netherlands respect the agreements concluded in Paris in 2015.

In the discussions that have taken place so far, under the responsibility of the climate minister – and member of the VVD – Eric Wiebes -, the l & # 39; Nuclear energy has not been or almost been discussed. The fact that in addition to sustainable energy (wind and sun), a "back-up" is also necessary, is rarely disputed. But fast-moving gas plants seem more suited to this task than nuclear power plants that can not simply be turned on or off.

the cabinet. During this debate, Chris Stoffer, member of the SGP, was the only one to ask not to exclude nuclear energy.

About Stoffers' policy regarding nuclear energy, Wiebes said that the Netherlands had never ruled out nuclear energy. "But nobody has also applied this technology in the Netherlands for ten years, which is not to be expected in the years to come, it does not play now," said the minister.

Thorium is a safer alternative to uranium used as fuel in nuclear power plants. Read also: Safer nuclear is possible, but is it there?

The VVD faction in the House of Representatives is currently playing it. The IPCC, the UN climate working group, takes into account nuclear energy in its latest scenarios. This report of a month ago was the reason why we had to start over in the field of nuclear energy, says Dilan Yesilgöz-Zegerius, a member of the VVD responsible for climate in the portfolio. "Plus, the business world tells me that the climate tables that are currently negotiating a climate deal do not start the discussion on nuclear energy."

She admits that no market player is interested, but that makes sense "now that the government is the door" slammed "." That's why we thought: we need to put it back on the agenda. "Yesilgöz-Zegerius hopes that the nuclear will continue to play a role in the climate agreement tables." Yes, the construction of a nuclear power plant expensive, but wind energy was also expensive in the beginning. Climate policy has nothing cheap. "

Chairman of the Board, Rob Jetten, of D66, also knows the IPCC scenarios." But this advice applies to the world. On a global scale, nuclear energy will be part of the energy mix, but in the Netherlands, this is not necessary. It can be cheaper with clean techniques. "Carla Dik-Faber of ChristenUnie is surprised by Dijkhoff's timing." I really do not understand. The climate agreement tables showed that they could sufficiently reduce CO ₂ emissions without nuclear energy. The fact that you develop nuclear power just does not help you. "

Read also: Why the Netherlands never became a country endowed with nuclear energy

Fifteen years of construction

Nuclear energy has long been out of the public debate, This does not mean that experts do not matter, for example, the Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency concluded this spring that the use of nuclear energy in the Netherlands could result in an annual cost of 200 million At the same time, PBL also mentioned the objections.Six years can pass before the commissioning of the factory, then 2033. Add to that the political divisions in the Netherlands – even within the current coalition – and structural cost overruns, for example in England and France, and PBL concluded that "nuclear energy" does not correspond to the current political reality "

In addition, the question that arises is its see what interest the business community brings to the construction and operation of the plant. Tuesday evening, major energy companies have already shown no interest in the establishment of a nuclear power plant. Political courage also undoubtedly plays a role here. Because the sector has not forgotten that the government recently asked for modern coal plants.

It was the tweet of Taco Duma who, as the director of the RWE coal plant at Eemshaven, knew better than anyone that politics could change his mind. At the express request of the Government, its power plant was built, but it must be closed again before 2030. "I am curious to know who will ask the government to build this [kerncentrale] […] It was not the companies that asked them to build coal-fired power plants ", tweeted the statements of Douma na Dijkhoff.