photo by marijla (Flickr CC)

Growing anti-nuclear sentiment in Europe has reached another milestone. Following Germany’s move to close all of its nuclear power plants by 2022, Belgium has decided to shut its own starting in 2015 and completing by 2025, according to a Reuters report.

Much like the companies that run Germany’s nuclear stations, Belgium’s energy operator, Electrabel, warned of blackouts, environmental pollution and a decrease in energy independence as a result of the imminent shut down of the country’s 7 atomic power plants.

From AFP:

Already a net importer of electricity, Belgium could become increasingly dependent on its neighbours, increase its carbon footprint by replacing nuclear with thermal energy, and be forced to considerably hike the price of electricity for consumers.

Nuclear power is a tricky issue that divides many Greens. Well-known environmental writers such as Mark Lynas and George Monbiot have come out in favor of nuclear in the face of fossil fuel-driven climate change. They believe the risks posed by atomic energy are dwarfed by the risks of not using it. Simply put: shutting down nuclear plants at this point in time will cause an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, pushing the world closer to the brink of catastrophic climate change.

Lynas explains:

The current deployment of nuclear power worldwide of 430 reactors reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 2 billion tons per year. And that really is the beginning and the end of the argument if you’re in the slightest bit concerned about global warming. And all of the oft-stated green objections to nuclear power are either urban myths or an order of magnitude less important than global climate change.

Nevertheless, in the wake of Japan’s Fukushima disaster, Belgium sees things differently. It joins Germany, Switzerland and Italy in a move away from nuclear power. Contrastingly, the Czech Republic and Poland are positive about their own nuclear ambitions. Europe is clearly not united on this issue.

We are generally familiar with the risks of nuclear power: Chernobyl and recently Fukushima are both frightening, though very different, examples.

On the other hand we need to acknowledge that coal kills – far more than nuclear power, albeit in more subtle ways that we are perhaps more used to and less aware of, such as respiratory diseases.

And then there are mining disasters, like the explosion in a Chinese coalmine last week, which killed 29 people.

Of course what we really need are more renewables like solar, wind and wave power. But if sudden decisions to close down nuclear plants (which admittedly pose risks) result in more coal usage (which unequivocally kills thousands of people every year) maybe being uncompromisingly anti nuclear isn’t the Greenest position at this point in time.

And then there are the wars we fight over oil…

image credit: Bente Stachowske/Greenpeace

Germany’s cabinet has voted to extend nuclear power use in the country by an average of 12 years.

According to legislation passed in 2002 by the Social Democratic-Green Party coalition, all nuclear power stations in Germany were to be decommissioned by 2022.

Not any more.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel of the Christian Democratic Party, which rules as part of a center right coalition, sees the extension as a way to generate tax income, while meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and transitioning to renewable energy sources.

But nuclear energy is not popular in Germany and the decision to extend the use of nuclear power plants is highly controversial. It has been met by protests and added to the Green Party’s power base.

Some polls put the Greens on a par in popularity with the Social Democrats at around 20% — that’s unprecedented in German history. Older, experienced activists from the 1970s and ’80s have joined younger protesters and grassroots networks. There’s a tough and united opposition to nuclear power and Chancellor Merkel may pay a high political price.

–Dieter Rucht, professor of sociology, Social Science Research Centre, Berlin (via Time Magazine)

On Tuesday several hundred protesters demonstrated outside of Chancellor Merkel’s office, including activists from Greenpeace. According to the Telegraph, Greenpeace also projected anti nuclear power slogans onto 12 atomic energy reactors in the country.

For more on the story, see the following piece in Time Magazine:

Germany: Greens See Red Over Nuclear Power Extension

Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant, Östhammar, Sweden; photo by Östhammar (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

Job growth and climate change trump safety concerns amongst most Swedes when it comes to the use of nuclear energy and apparently also the storage of nuclear waste.

The Swedish parliament may have (at least until recently) regularly voted to phase out nuclear power in Sweden, but the Swedish public is less steady in their feelings about atomic energy. A poll from 2008 by market research agency Synovate and newspaper Dagens Nyheter showed that 48% supported the construction of new nuclear power stations, with 39% against and 13% undecided. By contrast, only one political party (Folkpartiet or the Liberal Party) was pro new construction at the time of the poll – and they only captured 7.5% of the vote in the last general election in 2006.

Futhermore, according to Snyovate only 20% of Swedes wanted nuclear power to be phased out, while 80% prefer its continued use. This is a stark contrast to the largely anti-atomic energy feelings that swept Sweden in the 1980s.

Admittedly climate change, nuclear power and the economy are all hot issues in which opinion can change quickly and so these polls may not reflect current public opinions as accurately as they did two years ago. But several Swedish municipalities are even competing to be home to a new nuclear waste dump. Östhammar, a municipality around 100 km north of Stockholm, is one of the two finalists.

From a New York Times piece:

Sweden, which swore off nuclear power after less than 20 percent of Swedes approved of it in a referendum in the 1980s, would seem an unlikely place for such a competition. But it has reversed course recently and plans to begin building new nuclear reactors, adding to the 10 it already operates.

Fears of a climate change may indeed contribute to the pro-nuclear position in Sweden, but what about fears of nuclear accidents? Östhammar is already home to Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant, site of an incident in 2006 described by a former Forsmark boss as the ‘most dangerous’ nuclear incident since Chernobyl.

So maybe it’s just the economy, stupid. (I love when I get the opportunity to paraphrase that quote). Besides, it’s only right that they should store the waste that they themselves create instead of shipping it off elsewhere. Maybe most people in Sweden trust their government and large corporations enough to feel safe – even when they’re burying nuclear waste in their ‘backyards’.

by Graham Land

Swedish language sources:

Synovate – Kärnkraftsopinionen 25 år efter folkomröstningen

DN – Varannan svensk vill ha nya kärnkraftverk