One thing is clear—the debate is a heated one.  The Nuclear Forum’s recent media blitz provoked condemnation from the anti-nuclear movement, but ranks as one of the few instances where the pro-nuclear lobby took initiative in the debate.  Essentially there are three choices available to the country: one, phase out nuclear energy as planned; two, delay the phase out; three, build more nuclear installation.  Each approach has distinct advantages and disadvantages.  

 

A nuclear phase out as planned may cause serious problems.  The scenarios outlined by the Commission Energy 2030 show us running into trouble due to the escalating costs of the carbon credits we’ll need to pay for.  The Federal Planning Bureau’s modelling on the other hand predicts manageable costs in that regard.  But many in energy and business circles also argue that we will not be able to replace the nuclear capacity quickly enough to meet demand.   Countering this, the anti-nuclear lobby (Bond Beter Leefmilieau, Greenpeace, WWF, Voor Moeder Aarde, etc) argue that the capacity of the first three reactors should be relatively easy to cover by investments that are currently in the pipeline (cogeneration and gas installations at industrial locations and the first offshore wind farms).  The question remains, however, what will happen after about 2022 when the remaining installations begin to be taken off the grid.  According the Federal Planning Bureau’s models, the energy system will take recourse mainly to gas and renewables.   In fact, by 2020 renewable capacity should amount to approximately 28% of total installed electricity capacity.  Given the fact that in 2005 renewables represented 5.5% of total capacity, this first phase will already be a herculean task.  After 2025, however, when the remaining nuclear capacity is taken offline (and taking with it about 1/3 of the electricity generated in 2020), the investments in renewables and gas installations will need to ramp up dramatically.  One key advantage of going ahead with the nuclear phase out—and confirming this decision as soon as possible—is that this will finally create the legal clarity needed to attract major investments in new energy capacity.  It will kickstart an engine that needs to ramp up well into the 2020s. Certainly the country will probably need to import a large proportion of its (green) power needs.  Although there are currently indications that our neighbours are keen to restrict export of their green energy to some extent, such tactics will need to be fought vigorously both legally and technically (for example, by investing in more grid interconnections over the North Sea).