Introduction
Nuclear power has always been a difficult compromise between the benefits and costs of using it. The benefits are simple compared to for example energy produced by fossil fuels; it uses just small amounts of radioactive material to produce high amounts of power with no direct pollution of the atmosphere. Because it uses small amounts of radioactive material that can also be produced instead of only harvested, it doesn’t have the same problems as fossil fuel, which is running out of stock (NEA, 2007). It also has less risk of recourse depletion because the geopolitical distribution of Uranium sources and production is more spread than that of fossil fuels (NEA, 2007). Because of these benefits it is considered an acceptable option to the use of fossil fuels next to renewable energy sources (NEA, 2007).
But the costs of nuclear energy are also quite clear. One of the disadvantages of using nuclear material is the storage of ‘leftover-material’, that is still radioactive. The storage of the material raises many environmental and safety questions across the world (Kursunoglu, Mintz & Perlmutter, 2002). As we all know leftover-material stays radioactive for a very long time and so the material is stored away in for example above-ground or under the ground waist disposals. Concerns are that the material stored in such locations can leak into the ground, or worse, into the water.
Other legitimate concerns are possible malfunctions or natural disasters that can cause radioactive material to be leaked in the soil or water or can cause a nuclear meltdown. One of the biggest disasters that have had a big footnote in the history of nuclear energy is the disaster at Tsjernobyl. The effects of the nuclear meltdown were felt on a global scale with the spread of nuclear radiation in a large area (Bron binnen Brooks).
In more recent years the disaster in Japan and the aftereffect of the disaster at Fukushima showed the world what could happen if a natural disaster strikes a nuclear power plant that is not capable of withstanding that kind of force. In March 2011 a Tsunami hit Japan as result of an Earthquake. This led to damage to the Daiichi plant in Fukushima, which caused radiation leaking into the atmosphere surrounding the power plant (Brooks, 2012). This led to damage to the Daiichi plant in Fukushima, which caused radiation leaking into the atmosphere surrounding the power plant (Brooks, 2012). One month later, the regulatory organisation of Japan on nuclear energy, the nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, announced that this meant it was a class 7 emergency (Von Hippel, 2011). This is the same emergency class as Tsjernobyl although the release was eventually one-tenth of that disaster. The dangers on health because of the radiation leakage luckily where minimal, but the fear for nuclear energy was awakened across the globe. It showcased again the problems associated with harnessing radioactive material in nuclear power facilities. Many countries that used these facilities to produce energy had to adept further to the risks of using it and the public perception on the use of nuclear power.
The recent problems with the Doel reactor one in Belgium and the debate in the Netherlands on having a say in dealing with these problems shows that the topic of nuclear energy production is highly relevant in the Netherlands (NRC, 2016). On a international level the adoption of the Paris Agreement on sustainable development is signed on 11 december (FCCC, 2015). The main objective of the agreement is to cut the increase in temperature of the atmosphere to a maximum of two degrees Celcius (FCCC, 2015). It is the responsibility of nations themselves to decide how to achieve the requirements to meet that goal on a national level. This means countries have to shift from using fossil fuels to renewable or clean energy. Nuclear energy can be seen as production method that can help achieve this and so nuclear energy is still highly relevant on an international level.
In France and Germany efforts have begun shortly after Fukushima to decrease their dependence in nuclear power. Germany had already initiated a so-called “phase-out” in 2000 that was cancelled in 2009 and reinstated after the events of 2011. For example closing down 8 of its 17 reactors immediately after the disaster (Lechtenböhmer & Samadhi, 2012). France, who always greatly relied on nuclear reactors, have committed to decreasing their dependence on nuclear reactors but as for now are not calling for a “phase-out” (World Nuclear Association, 2015). So the outcome of the different country policy’s are similar in decreasing the use of nuclear power but different in the question if they want to keep using nuclear power. Both France and Germany have chosen to be less dependent of nuclear energy to provide electrical power. But Germany has chosen to completely shutdown all 17 nuclear reactors. As for France, they want to reduce this dependency to 50% in 2025 (World Nuclear Association, 2015). France has derived 76,9% (in 2014) of its energy from nuclear energy opposed to Germany’s 15,8% procent in 2014 (NEA, 2015).
As they both are highly influential countries on a European and international level they both can influence the choices being made to provide energy now and in the future. From a public administrative point of view it is clear what caused these sudden policy reforms but a more interesting question would be as to why the contends of these reforms differ. It’s also interesting to see how a change event many kilometres away from these two countries can be so influential in the policy reforms.
So the goal of the essay is to analyse the causes and backgrounds of nuclear energy policy reforms in France & Germany after the Fukushima disaster.