Looking ahead for 2025: everyone waiting for the other to act

I’ll be discussing this with Thies Beckers, chair of the e-Lise Foundation. But before we start, I’ve asked Thies to briefly introduce himself and what drove him to nuclear energy.

MB: I'm Mathijs, or Thies, Beckers, and I am the chairman of the e-Lise Foundation, a foundation which busies itself with nuclear energy advocacy in the Netherlands, especially with politicians on all levels and people who are active in the nuclear energy sector. We explain to people what the need for nuclear energy is and how we can ensure that we are a little faster with nuclear energy, because at the moment things aren’t moving very fast.

Emil: What brought you to nuclear energy? 

MB: Oh Jesus, that's a long story. I actually started working on the subject back in 2010, when I started thinking about climate change and the future. As with many parents the trigger was my son being born at the time. I was wondering if we were building a good world for my son. After reading into the matter, I concluded that we were wrongheaded with this question, not only in the Netherlands, but globally.

I’ll have to explain my take on this. CO₂ is not simply ‘pollution’, there’s a bandwidth in which we need CO₂. Too few and we live on an ice planet, too much and it’s Tatooine. It’s like with a stereo set: set the knob to 20 and the porcelain breaks in the cabinet, but if it is a 6 or 8, it’s fine. That's the nuance that many people don't understand. I think I can give a levelheaded response to this and give some counterweight to the panicky response that we’ll be running out of time by 2030. It's not like that. The biggest issues will occur beyond 2050. The biggest impact will be in the tropics and subtropics, where two to three billion people live.

Having said that, I don’t think we’ll ever be able to actually go to zero CO₂ emissions. We should aim to have things under control in that regard. Besides, keeping reliance on fossil fuels is more and more a geopolitical nightmare. Look at Ukraine and what happened in Europe with the energy crisis. Europe is not a big player in the geopolitical field anymore and the current deteriorating situation is strongly linked with energy flows. Moving away from fossil fuels means we can regain some independence politically, and it is natural that many think solar and wind are solutions to these problems.

When I started back in 2010 I was quickly convinced that solar and wind weren’t the silver bullet many people made them out to be. The slogans of them being cheap, easy and fast come with some big caveats. We in the West can easily sink a ton of money into this, but the rest of the world is watching. The third world is not going to go this route, which is something I already concluded around the same time and we see unfolding today. So, what’s the alternative then? This is how I ended up with nuclear energy as a crucial part of the solution.

Emil: Thank you for this backstory and setting up the table for looking forward to 2025. Let’s start in our home country, the Netherlands: the government wants to build four big nuclear power plants and TNO recently published a research saying we need an absolute minimum of 13 SMRs to power the industry. What does that say for the prospects of 2025?

MB: Well, looking at the Dutch situation, one hopes that the government can be decisive and actually starts building the four plants. But if you look at what is actually being done, we see little sense of urgency and a lot of talking and more talking.

What matters in this regard? Avoiding pitfalls and replicating good precedents. Problem is however that we don’t have many precedents to learn from. There is the recent example of Barakah in the United Arab Emirates, but that situation can hardly be replicated. They were in a luxury position to just buy an all star workforce from all over the world to build those units, but it’s obvious that that doesn’t scale.

So, what does work? Learning from our own history building Borssele in the early 1970s, we know that we should order an off the shelf unit. In a negative sense, this lesson was also learned with the construction of the EPRs in Finland, France and Great Britain, where everyone had their own wishes and demands, so that the design had to be redrawn for every situation. You don’t want that. You just want to order an existing design and put it in our polder landscape as is.

There are three players with such an off the shelf design: Westinghouse’s AP1000, EDFs EPR and Kepco/KHNP’s APR1400. Ultimately diplomacy decides which of these designs wins out. While I hope that we’ll see a decision on it this year, I expect this to happen in 2027 or 2028.

Then there is the question of location. Until recently we had three guaranteed locations, which had a special status in case a nuclear power plant was to be built there: the Eemsharbor, the Maasvlakte and the existing site at Borssele. At all these locations, and others, there’ll always be people complaining about the extra infrastructure needed, or the lack of room, or that they’re confronted with yet another ‘setback’ because they get a nuclear power plant. This is where my foundation plays a role, in trying to force a breakthrough in this tug of war.

Outside of these guaranteed locations it’s a more difficult question. The Netherlands is a crowded place, where every square meter is owned by someone. At e-Lise we talk with municipalities and give them a jolt of reality shock. They are after all tasked with implementing low carbon energy alternatives and if they don’t want rows and rows of wind turbines, an SMR is an interesting alternative to many. We are there to tell you that if you’re serious about the economic and social life of your municipality or region, you need nuclear energy, and help you in the steps of realising an actual build.

In Den Helder for example we played a crucial role in the local municipality moving forward on adopting a resolution to build an SMR. We’ve spent the last few years introducing them to the idea and a few months ago their local council adopted this position, which is a huge win and a blueprint for other places.

If TNO says that we need 13 SMRs, I think they’re underestimating the true requirements. For example, if we look at Limburg there’s a big energy consumption in Maastricht, a huge one in Sittard-Geleen, and another big one in Roermond. The industrial site in Sittard-Geleen alone could be serviced by three SMRs the size of 400 MWe each.

Then we look at other industrial areas: Moerdijk, Rotterdam, IJmuiden, Amsterdam, Emmen, Delfzijl, the Eemsharbor… There are easily a dozen large industrial sites that could go with clean energy from SMRs. This essentially defines our task as a foundation, there’s a lot of work cut out for us.

Emil: Before we cross borders, just one more question for the Netherlands: as per current legislation Borssele has to close in 2033 at age 60. But an extension is in the works beyond that. However, last year the MER Commission put some roadblocks in demanding a full research on the environmental effects of this extension. Do you expect some progress on it this year?

MB: The municipality and the owner have to carry out this report I believe and it has to be done. There’s no way around it, even if it is nonsensical. This is a big reason why this is taking so long, the whole process is so bureaucratised, it’s an obstacle run and it will take time.

Emil: So, to be continued. Let’s cross the border, but only by a few hundred meters, to the Doel nuclear power plant near Antwerp. Next month, on 15 February Doel 1 is going to close. Doel 2 and Tihange 1, near Liege, are also closing later in the year. I don’t have to ask you for your opinion on their closings, but what’s your take on the possibilities of Belgian politics now? Can these reactors be saved?

MB: We get reports that Bert Wollants might be the next Belgian prime minister, and he’s someone who is in favor of nuclear energy. That said, he can’t turn the tide on his own of course. The future of nuclear energy will be the result of a delicate balancing act of the new coalition. I’m not sure which parties are involved with that, but I hope the Greens remain out this time.

Time is running out for Doel 1, a relatively small unit at 450 MWe. The so-called “hairline crack” reactors, Doel 3 and Tihange 2, are already closed, both of which were 1 GWe units which the owner, Engie, already started to decommission. My advice to the new government would be to mothball the units as soon as possible and put a stop to any further decommissioning work. This leaves you the option to put in a minor investment and then run them for another 30 years. This should be a no-brainer.

Second, remove Engie from the equation. They’re not interested in keeping these plants in any case. Electrabel, now a part of Engie, should become independent again. If that’s not possible, create a new company that runs these plants in the interests of Belgium.

Emil: There is one other issue for nuclear energy in Belgium, the law on the nuclear phaseout. It has to be repealed. Do you see that happening with the upcoming government?

MB: It depends on the next coalition, but I see possibilities and a political will to remove that law from the books if Bert Wollants comes to power.

Emil: Let’s move on to Germany. Next month they’ll have federal elections and the christian democrats are currently leading the polls. They did a 180 on the question of nuclear energy. They now want to restart the closed down reactors. Do you see that as a possibility?

MB: Yes! Our friends over at Radiant Energy Group recently published a report saying Germany could restart up to 12 GW of existing nuclear energy plants. The CDU is the party of Merkel which was in power when Fukushima happened. At that time she was losing a local election in Baden-Württemberg against the Greens, so she quickly moved to a position of closing all the nuclear power plants. This topic was always a political plaything in German politics.

In the early 2000s it was Gerhard Schröder who aimed to replace nuclear energy with Russian gas. Back then he made a deal with the Greens: they could build their beloved wind and solar farms and close the nuclear power plants, and he would deliver on the Russian gas to keep the lights on.

I think that the CDU have had a come to Jesus moment, where they think, God, what have we done? The German economy is clearly in decline. With a 100,000 jobs in Germany in danger, among others at Volkswagen and ThyssenKrupp, one of the biggest steel producers in Europe. Also at other companies, such as Goodyear and Deutsche Bahn. All companies that use a lot of energy.

Emil: But how are going to achieve that reversal in policy? Recently, the boss of RWE explicitly ruled out a return to nuclear. All the energy companies have similar positions. How are we going to change their minds?

MB: PreussenElektra is perhaps the least anti-nuclear of the bunch. Of the three units that are easiest to restart - Brockdorf, Emsland and Isar - none are owned by RWE I think. And even if the companies don’t want to restart them, the government can quite easily take ownership and create a new company to do the job.

Emil: So, a Belgian scenario where both governments themselves are involved in risk-taking.

MB: Yes. Another scenario could be that the government gives guarantees. For example to guarantee a twenty year run of the existing plants, or a 60 year run for new plants. But governments don’t really like that kind of thing, as it binds them too much.

Emil: Another scene then where uncertainty remains. Let’s shift gears towards hydrogen. The US Treasury just announced a set of tax incentives for hydrogen production. While nuclear isn’t excluded from them, they’re severely limited, apparently fencing off hydrogen production for renewable energy exclusively. Let’s take this as a starting point for a wider discussion on it, also with a view on Europe which is also figuring out how to crack this hydrogen nut.

MB: The biggest issue here is that ‘hydrogen’ has been captured by renewable-only advocates. In their view hydrogen is the solution to the problem of solar and wind intermittency. If the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow, you burn hydrogen in a gas plant for energy. That’s the big idea.

What many people don't realise is that this is a very stupid way to use hydrogen. It is a very nice building block for all kinds of chemistry we do, but also for the products we make, like plastic and ammonia. We currently do that hydrogen with fossil gas, but to do it with low carbon hydrogen, we need to build new factories.

And then there’s the trouble of green hydrogen, made with renewable energy, costing many times more compared to grey, fossil, hydrogen. Nuclear energy can provide a solution here, but takes time and money. And here we run into a familiar problem: the existing industry doesn’t have a systems view on the energy transition, they just care about their own little part. If we want to see investments in this, we need guarantees. Someone has to tell them that they can continue in the way they are producing now.

Emil: That brings me to the last part. I notice that there is a red thread in this interview that every party is waiting on the other to move first. There’s one party we haven’t mentioned yet: the EU. What can we expect there in 2025?

MB: Europe is in turmoil. Industry is struggling, people are seeing living costs explode. Meanwhile the EU has chosen to punish industry and countries for not adhering to carbon emissions and nitrogen rules. All of this creates a lot of friction.

Another area where we see friction is in the European grid. Sweden is divided in several electricity pricing zones, with the south of Sweden directly connected to Denmark and Germany. So, whenever there’s a shortage of energy in Denmark or Germany, Swedish nuclear plants fill the gap and prices skyrocket. Swedish consumers pay up to a hundred times more than those in northern Sweden for electricity. Suffice to say that Swedish politicians are not happy with this arrangement.

All of this causes the far and populist right to rise in popularity, like the AfD in Germany. This is eroding the very foundation of the EU.

Then we have people like Dan Jørgensen who just became the new European Commissar on energy, who spent many years attacking nuclear energy. Ironically, Denmark has one of the highest electricity prices in Europe. A small country that is ideally situated for wind energy but still burns a lot of coal and imported biomass.

But when the wind doesn’t blow the system falls apart. I want to end on a high note, but first I want to say this: the Germans and the Danes should shut up already.

If you look at the EU, there’s an axis of five anti-nuclear countries: Denmark, Germany, Austria, Luxembourg and Spain. Those are the countries that are currently anti-nuclear. Germany and Denmark may turn, but that’s still a big if. Spain is still an open question for me. I have no hope for Austria, and Luxembourg … is an irrelevant player in the European arena.

But to end on a high note, there are plenty of countries that want to do a lot with nuclear: Poland already started with the construction of three AP1000s; France wants to build at leat twelve EPRs; the UK started with a set of EPRs at Sizewell C; Sweden wants to build 10 GW of new nuclear; then we have Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary… all of the eastern side of Cental Europe is busy with building more nuclear or wanting to. Even Italy has opened the door again to new nuclear, decades after their nuclear phaseout. There’s clearly an enthusiastic interest in nuclear energy in Europe.

Emil: Thank you for your insights. If people want to follow you or the e-Lise Foundation, where can they do that?

As for e-Lise, I refer to our website and urge people who have an interest in doing something, to contact us. We have volunteers active on all aspects of the energy sector and of a wide political mix even though we’re politically neutral as an organisation.

As for myself, you can find me on my YouTube channel, the Atomic Jedi, and I have a renewed account on X, although I haven’t done anything with it yet.

Do you value this free article? Please consider a onetime donation or subsribe to read all of my content. Thank you!