Blog (EN)
Efficient cooperation with the government
For a successful integration of nuclear energy in the energy transition, efficient cooperation between industry, universities and knowledge institutes, the government and society is an absolute precondition. If certain developments are wanted by government and society, this stimulates industrial activity, innovation and development. On the other hand, inspiring education at universities and colleges in that field stimulates the formation of a new batch of engineers and scientists, who will find their place in industry, the government and elsewhere in society, and who will act as ambassadors for even more support. If that cooperation goes well, it turns like a flywheel: almost frictionless.
As for nuclear power and the applications of radiation and radioactivity, there are a number of brake pads fitted to that flywheel that currently prevent it from turning properly. In this article, we'll discuss some of those brake pads and how to remove them from the flywheel.
Nuclear energy: an analysis of the societal costs and benefits
The generation of nuclear energy is from a financial/economic point of view characterised by the high up-front costs (capital intensiveness) and the long duration (we use 60 years for our calculations) where (constant dispatchable) energy can be produced at very low marginal costs. Given the patience required, every private company will demand a clear commitment from the government. This usually will be difficult to make concrete, or in the case of guaranteed prices, will be very costly for the government/society. Many studies therefore arrive at high costs (i.e. inefficiency) for nuclear energy generation.
We believe that the Dutch government can provide commitment at relatively low cost by financing a large part of the initially required capital. Since the government is then "in the same boat" as the private operator, the latter can be assured that the government will not change its mind halfway through (i.e. after 30 years!). From a social point of view, such a commitment is desirable because of the CO2 reduction that, certainly in later years, will generate a great deal of prosperity. After all, in the short term (10 years) we can still take major (efficient) steps with, for example, wind & solar energy, but in the medium term we also need an energy source that can deliver constantly & reliably. The costs in terms of emissions of the 'next best alternative' after nuclear (e.g. natural gas) will in the long term be so high that the (medium) long-term returns (in tCO2eq) more than make up for the initial investment in terms of social return.