The energy crisis that has hit Europe, and Italy in particular, since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine is known to all of us, as are the dramatic consequences on the economy and our quality of life.
What is not yet clear, however, is how to get out of it, and, more importantly, how to avoid being so energy-dependent on other countries in the future, especially those that are politically distant from us.
The proposals related to nuclear power has resonated the most in recent months. Particularly in Italy, where nuclear power was rejected by two referendums, in 1987 and in 2011, people have started talking about nuclear power as one of the sources to be included in the energy mix needed both to reduce its environmental impact and to decrease its dependence on other countries.
The European Parliament has also recently included nuclear power in its taxonomy, considering it one of the sources to be placed alongside renewable energies to produce greener energy.
Pros and cons of nuclear power
When talking about nuclear power, especially in Italy, the debate is intense, and the arguments are countless on both sides. To clarify, it is necessary to analyze the various aspects neutrally and free of politicization and ideologies.
First, it is important to point out the existence of several generations of nuclear power: The first one, dating back to the 1950s and 1960s, characterized the dawn of the experimentation; the second one developed between the 1970s and the 1990s and it is still the most widespread in the world; the third generation makes its way from the 2000s and it currently represents the most modern and advanced model in operation, together with its III+ version. The fourth generation, which we often hear about, began to be studied and designed from 2001 by a research program whose aim was to build increasingly safer, less polluting, and more economical nuclear power plants.
If we consider the most modern third- or fourth-generation nuclear power plants, it is interesting to point out some aspects related to their environmental impact.
On the one hand, the positive aspects concern the very low climate-changing power, as well as the land consumption per unit of energy produced, which is also limited. The radioactivity rate is quite low. Suffice it to know that a coal-fired power plant releases much more radioactivity than a nuclear power plant.
On the other hand, a negative aspect concerns the water consumption required to operate a nuclear power plant, which is high, since water is essential to cool the reactor.
This turns out to be a major issue, especially because of droughts. They will increasingly characterize our continent. For example, last summer, France had to shut down some nuclear power plants due to the lack of water, caused by the severe water crisis the country was experiencing.
However, the debate about CO2 emissions is more complex. First, it is very difficult to find neutral reports and data. In fact, the data we have are often provided by companies operating in the sector and therefore directly involved. Their impartiality is to be strongly questioned. In general, it can be said that “zero-emission” nuclear power does not currently exist, as some companies instead claim. However, it is true that, with the new technologies, the level of emissions has been substantially reduced, and it is true that emissions tend to be less polluting than energy produced from fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas.
As for safety, it is not possible to guarantee that an accident will never occur, but it is possible to make nuclear power plants increasingly safer and controlled to prevent any kind of accident or malfunction, and something has already been done.
Finally, the issue of radioactive waste disposal is not to be underestimated. Here, too, potential solutions for disposal are being worked on. One example is France, which is investing in a huge underground storage center. It is 500 meters below the surface, safe and far from residential areas. However, the exorbitant costs are the problem with this kind of operation; they are far from making fourth-generation nuclear power “more economical”.
Validity of nuclear power to counter the current energy crisis
After shedding light on some characterizing aspects of nuclear energy, we need to ask whether and how useful it could be in countering the current energy crisis.
Countries that already have active nuclear power plants demonstrate that it is very useful to possess this energy source during crises. In fact, today it is not possible to guarantee the amount of energy needed solely through renewable energies. They are intermittent and difficult to store.
Germany is emblematic. It was supposed to shut down one of the last three active nuclear power plants by the end of this year. They wanted to permanently abandon nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. However, the German government decided to postpone its closure until April 2023, to cope with the current energy crisis, especially as winter approaches.
In Italy, talking about nuclear power to get out of the energy crisis is quite unrealistic. In fact, it is estimated that it would take 10 to 20 years to build the latest generation of nuclear power plants. If we wanted to invest in nuclear power in a timely manner, we would probably only be able to build third-generation nuclear power plants, such as the French ones. In any case, it would take a few years. Therefore, it is quite clear that nuclear power cannot be a short-term solution for Italy.
The debate remains open for the future. Scientists from the International Energy Agency (IEA) or the European Union itself argue that for a creation of a more independent and sustainable energy mix, it is necessary to start or implement state-of-the-art nuclear power plants. Others argue that with the right incentives we can aim to create an energy supply that is almost exclusively renewable.
To this day, there is no unanimous answer to this debate. However, one thing is certain: reopening coal-fired power plants to deal with the energy crisis cannot and should not be a long-term solution, as Italy did last September. Therefore, we need realistic analyses and concrete decisions about what lies ahead in terms of energy supply.
Translated by Denise Praticò.
“Copyright © 2022 - Mondo Internazionale APS - All rights reserved “
Sources consulted for this article:
http://www.colpodiscienza.it/societa-ambiente/il-nucleare-non-sara-decisivo-per-la-crisi-energetica/
https://www.ilpost.it/2022/10/18/germania-centrali-nucleari-aperte-aprile/
https://pagellapolitica.it/articoli/promessa-nucleare-italia-elezioni-2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7qr2OtQoes
https://www.lavoce.info/archives/94553/sulle-rinnovabili-ce-un-problema-da-risolvere-lo-stoccaggio/
https://nucleareeragione.org/centrali-nucleari-e-loro-sicurezza/
https://www.repubblica.it/green-and-blue/2022/01/24/news/nucleare_di_quarta_generazione-334979723/
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/what-know-you-go-bananas-about-radiation
https://europa.today.it/fake-fact/nucleare-energia-pulita-verde.html
Image: https://pixabay.com/it/photos/blackout-mancanza-di-corrente-7574763/
Share the post
L'Autore
Alessia Marchesini
Classe '99, si laurea in Scienze Internazionali e Diplomatiche presso l'Università di Bologna. Attualmente frequenta un Master in Politiche, Progettazione e Fondi Europei presso l'Università di Padova. I suoi interessi più grandi sono la storia e la geopolitica, ma anche la natura e la tutela dell'ambiente. Da convinta europeista, ha deciso di cimentarsi nello studio e nell'approfondimento degli strumenti che l'Unione Europea mette a disposizione di stati e cittadini per rispondere alle esigenze del nuovo secolo, in particolare quelle focalizzate su lavoro, transizione energetica ed ecologica.
Categories
Tag
Energy crisis Nuclear power plants Taxonomy Nuclear power