Like other political parties, Volt has had many discussions about the environmental merits of nuclear power. But while the questions have remained the same for the last 30 years, the answers have changed significantly, writes Kathrine Richter.
Kathrine Richter is co-president of Volt Denmark.
In Volt we have had many discussions about nuclear power and tempers run high, as it is an emotional topic for many. We see it in every debate and every presentation: what about Chernobyl and what about the waste?
But while the questions have remained the same for the last 30 years, the answers have changed significantly. No one is building a new Chernobyl, of course – instead, generation III+ and generation IV reactors are well underway which will recycle nuclear waste and thus both reduce the half-life and maximize the yield of the uranium extracted.
Storing nuclear waste is safe and takes up minimal compared to the powerful amount of energy it creates. Completely CO2 free.
So why is it that nuclear power has been labeled so negatively for so many years? We still get into a plane and we still get into a car – why are we so scared of nuclear power?
The arguments may seem very fixed, but the essence of the concerns is often the erroneous link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, as well as the false images of liquid radioactive waste (waste is solid) that have flourished uncritically for decades.
In Volt, however, we have many advocates of nuclear power and by actively engaging in public debate and with our party colleagues, we have, through many, long tough debates established a common pan-European policy on nuclear power.
Because we want to invest in technology that provides a stable source of energy to replace the fossil fuels that nobody.
That is why the green lighting of nuclear power in the European taxonomy means so much for the energy conversation of the future. Because when states can invest in nuclear power, as we see in France, we need to have a more in-depth and critical conversation about nuclear power in our energy mix.
In Denmark, this green stamp will hopefully be the beginning of a rethinking how we can be part of the green transition in more diverse ways. Not just by plastering the whole of Denmark with wind turbines and building biogas plants next to every pig farm – but by actively contributing to the development of next generation nuclear energy – also within Europe.
The mistake of the taxonomy was to link gray fossil gas with green nuclear power. But the reality is that Germany runs on gas and is emotionally afraid of nuclear – while France runs on nuclear and needs to invest in their plants to upgrade them. The national interests are evident in the taxonomy.
However, we need a common European strategy where the future is not in fossil fuels. To help create such a strategy, there are three things I believe we in Denmark need to work on with Europe:
- Denmark must strengthen research into modern nuclear technology and thereby boost Europe’s knowledge.
- Europe’s energy networks must be upgraded to handle more weather-dependent energy sources, such as solar and wind, and boost connections to Spain’s and Portugal’s energy networks.
- Denmark must reverse the 1985 law banning the construction of nuclear power plants on Danish soil.
The green vote on nuclear power by the European Parliament means science has won over fear, but we only got it done because of the external threat posed by Russia’s gas supplies. These reactionary responses to the nuclear debate must stop because the future requires higher energy consumption and that requires us to use all remedies to ensure that energy is CO2-free and stable.
I, for one. look forward to a new and better conversation about Denmark’s and Europe’s energy mix.
Comments are closed.