Turning Points: Key Takeaways from the First Nuclear Energy Summit
“Better Late than Never” The first nuclear summit at the level of world leaders took place last week in the heart of Europe. But is the atomic world ready to get its act together?
After 70 years of commercial nuclear energy use, the first Nuclear Energy Summit convened in Brussels last week, near the Atomium—a symbol of the atomic age's optimism dating back to 1958. “Better late than never,” noted Rafael Mariano Grossi, the Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The need for a meeting of this kind was undeniable after COP28, where more than 22 nations signed onto the Triple Nuclear by 2050 pledge and nuclear energy was included for the first time in the global stocktake. 37 political leaders from around the world participated, including many European ones.
This post endeavors to capture the heart of what they have to say because political action from governments will be key to the next Nuclear Renaissance. Currently, the world doesn’t even have a level playing field when it comes to integrating nuclear. “We still have international financial institutions even today that prevents and forbids the financing of nuclear projects. But a page has been turned and we have to make sure we are well-aligned to do what we have to do,” said Grossi.
“The world needs to get its act together.”
The European Change of Heart
While world leader and their representatives from every continent except for Australia participated, the summit had a distinctly European flavor. Leader after leader cited Russia’s attack on Ukraine as a catalyst for their current strong embrace of atomic energy. Mark Rutte, still the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, put the case strongly:
“Never before has the vulnerability of our energy system been felt so directly. Never before has the need for a reliable and affordable fossil-free energy supply been so clear and never before has it been so obvious that the energy transition cannot happen on solar and wind alone.”
President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen targets “key tasks” to get nuclear going: secure new investments, achieve discipline from the nuclear industry and obtaining lifetime extensions for existing nuclear power plants.
“Given the urgency of the climate challenge countries need to consider carefully before they forego a readily available form of clean electricity. Extending is one of the cheapest ways to secure clean power at scale.” Spain and Germany, are you listening?
Robert Fico, PM of Slovakia, reminded us that it wasn’t so very long ago that the European Union itself was beating up on the low-carbon energy source it is now frantically trying to revive.
“It was in 2007 when I was the Prime Minister in Slovakia for the first time and we decided to finish two blocks of nuclear power in Mochovce and my government was heavily criticized by the European Commission and the European Union,” said Fico, who perhaps earned the right to a little dig after being not just vindicated after the fact but fortunate enough to be in the position to double down.
Describing his country as “a small France,” he invited “all companies from the world” who build nuclear plants to come to Slovakia and compete to build 1200MW worth of new nuclear.
The Energy Cornerstone
Again and again, nuclear was described as playing the the anchor role of keeping energy secure and certain. “Investing in new nuclear generation is seen as one of the cornerstones of our national strategy,” said Bulgarian PM Nikolai Denkov. Czech Republic PM Petr Fiala, meanwhile, said the goal is for nuclear energy to reach a 40% share of Czech power generation by 2050.
“Nuclear is a cost-effective way to decarbonization,” said Fiala, “it brings grid stability and security of supply. It is the only way to reach our energy independence.”
However, while nuclear incumbent nations like Bulgaria and the Czech Republic are confidently plotting a course, nuclear newcomers like Serbia are asking for help.
“We are all ready to discuss big plans, but we don’t know how to implement it,” said Serbian president Aleksandar Vučić, ““Mr Grossi…please come to Belgrade as soon as possible!”
Serbia is interested in getting at least four SMRs for 1,200MW, said Vučić, but international and institutional support will be necessary for the financing of up to 8 billion Euros.
THE ELEMENTAL TAKE
The first Nuclear Summit is the firm continuation we are looking for following the Tripling Pledge taken by so many critical countries at COP 28. To continue with the “Tripling” theme, I would like to propose a “Triple Necessity” and Triple Threat” in relation to nuclear energy.
The Triple Necessity was on full display at the summit: decarbonization, energy security and “economic competitiveness.” The first two are obvious, but the third is worth delving into. Nobody is denying that nuclear is a big investment. Initially, at least, it will be very expensive. But the reward for countries is an electricity source that you can count on.
Fatih Birol, the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA) explains upon entering the Summit: “Nuclear power can produce electricity without any interruption and the price of electricity coming from nuclear is not volatile. The industrial houses can make their plans on the basis of that.”
Now we move to the Triple Threat: How do we secure the new investments? How do we instill discipline in the nuclear industry? How do we move forward with such long-term projects when the world is so uncertain? Here I count uncertainty coming from any number of directions. We still have an anti-nuclear contingent, gas prices could continue to get low and stay low, and there remains technological uncertainty to the next generation of nuclear power, creating a complicated choice today between building the nuclear plants of yesterday versus building the nuclear plants of tomorrow.
“This future for nuclear energy is hardly assured,” warned von der Leyen, “the reality today in most markets is a reality of slow but steady decline in market share.”
In the world as a whole, nuclear currently account for 9% of the electricity mix, but back in 1988, it was 18%, double of what it is today. Within the EU, nuclear is still the largest single source of power generation at 22%, but that share is substantially below the level the continent reached in the 1990s, when a third of the power came from splitting atoms.
As the Buddhist saying goes “Even when the mountains do not turn around, the roads might still turn. Even when the roads do not turn around, the person might still turn. Even if the person does not turn around, they might still have a change of heart.”
In so many nations around the world building up to a powerful coalition, that change of heart has happened.
Now we must turn around and move the mountains.
Thank Angelica, solid piece
"How do we instill discipline in the nuclear industry?" This seems like the wrong question. The problem is not a lack of "discipline", it is massive over-regulation and obstructionism from environmentalists and other pressure groups. Regulators should look to more sensible approaches such as advocated in detail by Jack Devanney on his Substack.