CNBC European Business | The Nuclear Dilemma

The Nuclear Dilemma

Is atomic power the answer to today's energy and environmental problems?

Click here to view the gallery for this article

In the face of global warming, one much-maligned energy source could find new supporters. By Elisabeth Jeffries

The graceful dome-shaped reactor crowning many European nuclear power sites is absent from Denmark’s shores. Danish people have, for the most part, opposed the development of new nuclear power and thus, during the 1990s, the government adopted a strong policy in favour of onshore and offshore wind farms. Renewable energy capacity now feeds about a quarter of the population’s electricity needs.

Countries like Denmark can do without nuclear investment and other Europeans are in the process of phasing it out, yet this unlovely industry remains stubbornly at the centre of European energy discussions. In March, European politicians celebrated 50 years since the foundation of both the European Community/Union and the 1957 EURATOM treaty, which signposted the route to the continent’s nuclear future until the end of the century. “Fifty years old and still going strong!” exclaimed FORATOM, the nuclear industry group, after the festivities were over.

This seems a bizarre statement given that nuclear power is the most capital-intensive energy industry, the most expensive to invest in, and potentially the most toxic – which is why people stopped paying for new nuclear power stations in Europe at the end of the 1980s. At the moment, only two new nuclear installations are under construction in Europe.

One is at Outokumpu in Finland, while the other lies opposite the Channel Islands in Flamanville, northern France. Investment costs are a major issue. An estimate of plant construction costs alone by the International Energy Agency (IEA) shows that nuclear plant construction, at between €750 and €1,500 per kW, is at least 25% and 100% more expensive than coal and gas respectively.

In a European energy market now almost unrecognisable compared to 50 years ago due to liberalisation policies, nuclear cannot compete easily with gas. “In view of the risks they are facing in competitive markets, investors tend to favour less capital-intensive and more flexible technologies,” remarks the IEA study. Gas plants are flexible because they can be turned down without being switched off, unlike nuclear plants. This means that operational costs can be fine-tuned to changes in energy prices.

Private investors want transparency about return on investment, and they don’t want to wait forever to realise a profit. This places nuclear facilities at a real disadvantage to those producing gas, which are cheaper and quicker to build.

The only two European nuclear facilities currently under construction, in France and Finland, have attracted waves of protest