Only a few weeks earlier, the Lithuanian government announced it was in talks with Japan to help build a new nuclear reactor to replace its Soviet-made Ignalina facility, shut last year to comply with European Union commitments. Japan’s “very high standards of nuclear safety” were cited by the Lithuanian energy minister as proof that EU environmental norms would be met.
A devastating earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster later, Japanese technology provides cold comfort when it comes to safety standards and is instead raising alarm across the EU with the bloc’s till-now pro-nuclear energy chief, Günther Oettinger, calling for a debate on the possibility of a nuclear energy-free future for the region.
Europe was already a continent deeply divided on the use of nuclear energy. Following the 1986 catastrophe at Chernobyl (Ukraine, in the then Soviet Union), the public in many European countries developed a deep mistrust of this source of power. Austria, for example, has a total ban on nuclear energy; Italy had until recently suspended its nuclear energy programme and popular disapproval of nuclear power remains high in Germany, which has a freeze on new reactors.
On the other hand, nuclear energy is extensively used in France and Britain. More, given the increasing concern with fossil fuels and their impact on global warming, Europe had recently been witnessing something of a nuclear revival. The fears unleashed by Chernobyl were fading with time, and nuclear energy offered a clean and dependable alternative to the oil and gas.
Thus, Italy was about to embark on constructing its first nuclear plant, with Rome aiming to generate a quarter of the country’s future electricity from nuclear sources. New reactors were slated for construction in several eastern European states like Bulgaria and Lithuania. The UK had announced plans to build four new plants by the end of the decade. Even in nuclear-sceptic Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel had recently announced her government’s decision to keep the country’s 17 nuclear plants open for an average of 12 extra years.
Japan effect
But the ongoing crisis at Japan’s Fukushima reactor has thrown a weighty spanner in Europe’s nuclear works. The most dramatic announcement came from Germany, with Merkel making a sharp U-turn on her own new policy of extending the lifespan of the country’s nuclear plants. She also ordered seven of the oldest plants to be temporarily shut, declaring the events in Japan to be “a turning point for the whole world”. As much as 26 per cent of Germany’s electricity is produced from nuclear sources, with the seven older reactors accounting for about a third of that percentage.
In Italy, citizens are scheduled to vote between April 15 and June 15 on whether they support the government’s policy of bringing nuclear plants back, after a referendum almost 25 years before had decided to scrap the facilities. Unlike many other European countries, Italy is prone to earthquakes, and pro-nuclear government officials have been promoting the safety of nuclear plants by taking Japan as an example on how such facilities can be suitable even in areas of seismic activity. Given the new situation, it is likely that Rome’s nuclear plans will not meet with the requisite popular approval.
Earlier this week, European energy chief Oettinger announced plans for stress-testing all the EU’s 143 nuclear installations. The tests would be designed to ensure their safety against natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis, as well as acts of terrorism.
Dependence
Nuclear power produces around a third of the electricity and 15 per cent of the energy consumed in the EU. A total of 17 reactors in the region use boiling-water reactor technology, similar to those affected in Japan.
France and the UK are also hastening to calm fears and advising against “knee jerk” reactions to Japan’s crisis. In Britain, government officials have been pointing to the low level of seismic activity.
But regardless of ruling out a nuclear-free future for their countries, both France and the UK have set up inquires into the safety of their plants.
Europe is clearly shaken by events in Japan. Unlike Chernobyl, it is not the proximity of the disaster that is the main worry, but the fact that unlike Chernobyl, located in the poor Soviet Ukraine, Fukushima is in rich, first-world, Japan. And, if something could go wrong in Japan, it proves that Europe, for all its technology and safety norms, is vulnerable, too.
