• No results found

Chapter IV: NUCLEAR ENERGY AS PART OF THE TRANSITION PROCESS –

4.4. Conclusion

In conclusion, this chapter made the connection between nuclear energy as a valuable transition tool and the wider society. Since energy transition is linked to a societal transformation and new technological configurations, the bridge between the objective value-added and this societal aspect was needed to fully grasp its usefulness. The first sub-question of this chapter “Which infrastructures are necessary for the use of nuclear energy in the transition process and what are the main challenges in France and Germany?”, therefore answers that for nuclear energy to be a successful energy transition tool, national, safety and security and management infrastructures are required. Namely, the clarity in national position and regulatory frameworks provide the space for nuclear energy to be fully developed in a society. The safety and security infrastructures are crucial as they address the disposal of nuclear waste and the prevention of nuclear catastrophes. At the same time, safety and security issues are the main challenge of employing nuclear energy in society. The risks connected to a malfunction of a power plant, like that in Fukushima, inform the public acceptance of nuclear energy which in turn affects the chances of its success in the energy transition. As the French case showed, an extensive and comprehensible framework for reviewing and dealing with security issues ensures the safety of the workers, citizens, and the environment. On the other hand, gaps and unclarity in the nuclear waste disposal methods, and ways of mitigating risks of accidents, like strengthening the nuclear core did not address the fears of the German public, which eventually prevented nuclear energy from being a successful transition tool.

Next, the second sub-question “How has the Russian-Ukraine war questioned the present nuclear energy policies in the EU?” was answered by showing the immediate changes in the EU energy strategy with an extended focus on diversifying of energy sources and cutting of the Russian gas dependencies. Furthermore, the German reconsideration of its nuclear phase-out decision was striking and showed that its preference for natural gas may no longer be a feasible transitional tool. Overall, the Russia-Ukraine war showed the reversibility of nuclear energy policies. Ultimately, if the strongest opponent of nuclear energy – Germany, reconsiders to return back, nuclear usefulness for the energy transition and for energy independence is high.

The IEA aims to maximize the use of nuclear energy, thanks to its high energy yield and in that way, support the quick and carbon-free transition to RES.

Conclusively, this chapter showed how nuclear energy can be both a successful transition tool and an independent energy source within society. The ‘part and parcel of the energy transition process’ section of the main research question was thereby answered and the academic objectives of creating a connection between the value-added of nuclear energy and the multi-level perspective and wider socio-technological regime, were fulfilled.

C o n c l u s i o n s

This thesis has focused on the analysis of the value of nuclear energy as a transition tool in the energy transition processes in the EU, France and Germany. Since the current energy transition strategies are an effort to tackle the climate change by a move towards the RES, the importance of using the right tools to facilitate this process is undisputable. Nuclear energy has been shown as the ideal candidate for this purpose, and therefore it was this thesis’ main objective to establish the actual value of nuclear energy as part and parcel of the energy transition process. It was illustrated that even though the EU has identified nuclear energy as conducive to the transition process, national-level incongruence in nuclear energy policies between France and Germany emerged. It was therefore the aim of this research to investigate this contradiction and see why nuclear energy was successful in France, while not in Germany. In order to provide the answer to the main research question

“What is the value-added of nuclear energy as part and parcel of the energy transition process in the EU, Germany and France?”, the Energy Transition Governance Theory (Laes et al. 2014), the Social Acceptance Theory (Wustenhagen et al. 2007) and the Sustainable Energy Transition (SET) theory (Sgouridis and Csala 2014) were used. The Energy Transition Governance Theory and the 4 transition stages (pre-development, take-off, acceleration and stabilization) helped classify the complex policy development within the energy transition frameworks of France and Germany. The utility of the theory was proved in the fact that it ordered the activities by key social groups as having an influence over the direction of the energy policy.

Similarly, the Social Acceptance Theory, distinguishing between socio-political, community and market acceptance and their interactions, aided in the understanding of the socio-economic and political factors influence in accepting and rejecting nuclear energy. Therefore, the theory was shown as applicable not only to technologies in general, but also to nuclear energy specifically. Finally, the SET theory allowed the objective value-added of nuclear energy and of natural gas to be comparable through the EROEI concept. In this way, the overall utility of both nuclear energy and natural gas were established.

The method in obtaining the results to the main and supporting research questions was based in an in-depth analysis, process tracing and case study analysis methods. Firstly, an in-depth analysis of the EU climate and energy policies was presented with focus on the EU Green Deal and related to the national policies of the French energy strategy and the German Energiewende. Secondly, the process tracing method followed the energy transition and nuclear energy policy developments in France and Germany, with a specific focus on

the 2011 Fukushima accident as the critical juncture. Once general lessons on the development of pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear policies in France and Germany were obtained, they were contrasted through the case study analysis method. The main data for the analysis included the German Energy Concept, 13th Act Amendment and the ASN reports. The value-added of nuclear energy versus natural gas as transition tools were compared in regard to ‘cleanness’ (using the concept of EROEI), costs and security. Finally, an in-depth analysis of the necessary infrastructures for the adoption of nuclear energy in the transition process and the main challenges were established. The thesis concluded with an analysis of news articles related to the Russian-Ukraine war, in order to position nuclear energy and the relevant policies within the larger societal context.

The answer to the main research question “What is the value-added of nuclear energy as part and parcel of the energy transition process in the EU, Germany and France?” is as follows: With the presence of supporting national, safety and security, and management infrastructures, the value-added of nuclear energy to the energy transition process lies in its high energy capacity, full utilization of the energy investments, its carbon-free properties, long-storage capacity of uranium, low costs and the energy security it provides in relation to both supply and external actors. The objective value-added of nuclear energy identified in chapter 3, can be according to the findings obtained in this research utilized only with the support of key infrastructures, out of which the national position, stakeholder involvement and serious nuclear waste management regulations were the most important. This was shown through the comparison of the French case that included all of these supporting infrastructures, and the German case, that found them lacking, which in combination with the politicized anti-nuclear sentiments meant the rejection of nuclear energy from the transition process.

Additionally, the findings in this thesis showed that it was the politicization of the nuclear question in Germany that brought it on the political agenda, which eventually allowed anti-nuclear sentiments to affect the nuclear policy and push for a phase-out. France on the other hand was found apolitical on the nuclear question, and was seen addressing the anti-nuclear sentiments through education and information by pro-nuclear advocate groups. These findings are important as they showed the usefulness of the Social Acceptance Theory and how the interaction between the community levels of acceptance and the socio-political acceptance can lead to an influence on the energy policy. These findings are therefore generalizable to other settings as well, where there is a dynamic between the two levels. Conclusively, this research shows that other EU countries, where

anti-nuclear sentiments prevail and the anti-nuclear question was able to reach the political agenda, without the appropriate infrastructures, nuclear energy may not succeed regardless of its objective value-added.

Finally, the analysis of the Russia-Ukraine war showed that nuclear energy policy reversal is possible, especially in light of the German reconsidering of a return to nuclear energy. This finding is striking as Germany is the strongest EU opponent to nuclear energy. In this way, nuclear energy’s value for the future of the EU has a positive outlook, as the energy security and independence it provides can help to cut the EU dependence on Russian energy. However, the omitting of nuclear energy in the most recent REPowerEU document on energy independence points again to the continuation of lacking coherence in the EU nuclear and energy governance.

This research concludes that in light of the evident value-added of nuclear energy to the transition process, the EU must move towards a unified framework with its energy and nuclear policies. Otherwise, national-level (non)acceptance dynamics will prevail and hamper the opportunities nuclear energy presents for the decarbonization of the society. Overall, without a common framework, a common goal – like climate change, cannot be achieved.

Ultimately, the research contributed to the scholarly sphere by creating the connection between the value of nuclear energy and the societal dynamics of energy transitions and thus filled the gap in understanding on how to make nuclear energy a success in different contexts. The utility of the Energy Transition Governance Theory, the Social Acceptance Theory and the SET theory was proven by obtaining significant results. These theories may therefore be employed in other national contexts, whether in Europe or in developing countries, in order to establish nuclear energy as the dominant transition tool, and move the society towards RES -and a greener future. It is recommended that future research analyzes the necessary infrastructures for the employment of nuclear energy in the transition process across different institutional contexts, to truly provide an answer, on how to make nuclear energy a success of energy transition not only in the EU, but anywhere.

Seeing the effects of the Russian-Ukraine war on the nuclear energy policies across Europe, a concluding – (and bold) prediction of this thesis is that thanks to the value-added of nuclear energy and the energy independence and security it provides, Germany will see itself returning back to nuclear energy to complete its energy transition objectives. Future research can then compare the weight of the 2011 Fukushima accident and of the 2022 Russian-Ukraine as critical junctures of nuclear energy policy reversals.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(ASN) Autorite de Surete Nucleaire. (2020). ASN Report on the state of nuclear safety and radiation protection in France in 2020. The French Nuclear Safety Authority.

(ASN) Autorite de Surete Nucleaire. (2021). International reference texts. The French Nuclear Safety Authority.

(BMUV) Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection. (2020). “Response to Fukushima”.

(BMUV) Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection. (2022). “Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act”.

(BMUV) Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection. (2022). “The European tress tests”.

(BMWI) Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (2010). “Energy Concept for an Environmentally Sound, Reliable and Affordable Energy Supply”. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the

Environment.

(EIA) US Energy Information Administration (2021). “Energy Information Admin Electric Power Monthly”.

(EU ETS) EU Emissions Trading System. (2021). “Revision for phase 4 (2021-2030)”. European Commission. 2021.

(HONEST) History of Nuclear Energy and Society (2022). “Our Goals”.

(I2EN) International Institute of Nuclear Energy. (2022). Brief History of Nuclear Energy in France.

(IAEA) International Atomic Energy Agency (2022). “Global CO2 emissions rebounded to their highest level in history in 2021”. Press Release. March 8.

(IAEA) International Atomic Energy Agency. (2012). Establishing the Safety Infrastructure for a Nuclear Power Programme. IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SSG-16, IAEA, Vienna.

(IAEA) International Atomic Energy Agency. (2019). “IAEA Mission Says Germany Is Committed to Strengthening Safety, Sees Areas for Further Enhancement”. 12 April.

(IAEA) International Atomic Energy Agency. (2022). A 10-Point Plan to Reduce the European Union’s Reliance on Russian Natural Gas. Fuel Report.

(IEA) (2020). Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020. Fuel Report. December 2020.

(IEA) International Energy Agency. (2019). Global Gas Security Review, Fuel Report.

(IEA) International Energy Agency. (2021). Driving Down Methane Leaks from the Oil and Gas Industry, A Regulatory Roadmap and Toolkit. Technology report.

(IEA) International Energy Agency. (2022). “Europe”.

(IPCC) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). “Climate Change 2022. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability”. Working Group II contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers.

(OECD). (NEA) Nuclear Energy Agency. (2020). “Unlocking reductions in the construction costs of nuclear: a practical guide for stakeholders”. Nuclear Technology Development and Economics.

(OPECST) Parliamentary Office for Scientific and Technological Assessment. (2013). Energy transition in the light of innovation and decentralization. Republique Francaise.

(PPE) Multi Annual Energy Plan (2019). French Strategy for Energy and Climate. Ministere De la transition ecologique et solidaire.

(SFEN) Societe Francaise D’energie Nucleaire. (2022). “Livre blanc – Acte 2 – Décarboner efficacement notre économie”.

(UNEP) UN Environment Programme (2022). “For people and planet: the UNEP strategy for 2022–2025”.

Policy and Strategy.

Alderman, L. (2022). “France Announces Major Nuclear Power Buildup”. The New York Times.

Appunn, K. (2020). “Germany takes first small step towards finding nuclear waste resting place”. Journalism for the energy transition. Clean Energy Wire.

Baron, R. (2016). Energy Transition After the Paris Agreement: Policy and Corporate Challenges. OECD.

Background paper for the 34th Round Table on Sustainable Development. WindEurope Summit. Hamburg.

Barroso, L. A. (2020). “The Regulation and Policy of Latin American Energy Transitions”, Elsevier.

BDEW. (2021). “Die Energieversorgung 2021 – Jahresbericht”.

BMWK/BMUV. (2022). Prüfung des Weiterbetriebs von Atomkraftwerken aufgrund des Ukraine-Kriegs.

Bowen, A. Fox, H. (2011). “Parliamentary coalition confirms phaseout of nuclear power in Germany”.

Germany. DW. 01 July.

Breidthardt, A. (2011). “German government wants nuclear exit by 2022 at latest”. Environment. Reuters.

May 31.

Breitenbach, D. (2011). “German nuclear energy history: a timeline”. DW.

Brouard, S. Guinaudeau, I. (2017) “Nuclear Politics in France High-Profile Policy and Low-Salience Politics”. In: Muller, W. C. Thurner, P. W. (2017). The Politics of Nuclear Energy in Western Europe.

Oxford University Press

Cohen, P. (2022). “Climate Fears on Back Burner as Fuel Costs Soar and Russia Crisis Deepens”. The New York Times. February 23.

Cuiyun, C., & Chazhong, G. (2020). “Green development assessment for countries along the belt and road”.

Journal of environmental management, 263, 110344.

Deutscher Bundestag. (2011). Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des Ausschusses für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (16. Ausschuss). Drucksache 17/6361. 17. Wahlperiode.

Dickel, R. (2014). “The New German Energy Policy – What Role for Gas in a De-carbonization Policy?”.

OIES Paper. EG 85. The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

Energy Concept. 2010. “Energy Concept for an Environmentally Sound, Reliable and Affordable Energy Supply”. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.

Energy Union Factsheet France. (2017). SWD(2017) 395. European Commission. Brussels.

ESA (2022). Mission and strategic objective. Euratom Supply Agency.

EU Taxonomy. (2022). C/2022/0631 final. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU). European Commission.

European Commission (2022). Quarterly Report on European Gas Markets with special focus on the role of hydrogen in the future EU energy mix. Market Observatory for Energy. DG Energy, Volume 13.

European Commission (2022). Secure gas supplies. Energy Security.

European Commission. (2015). Energy Union package: A framework strategy for a resilient energy union with a forward-looking climate change policy. 25 February 2015, COM(2015) 80 final, 1–21.

European Green Deal. (2019). COM/2019/640. European Commission. Brussels.

European Nuclear Society (2022). Position Papers.

European Parliament. (2021). Energy Policy: General Principles.

Eurostat. (2022). “Energy statistics – an overview”. Statistics Explained.

Eurostat. (2022). “Nuclear energy statistics”. Statistics Explained.

France 2030. (2022). Elysee.

Garside, M. (2021). EU imports of uranium by country of origin 2020. Statista.

Geels, F. W. (2018). “Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: Progress and new challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the Multi-Level Perspective”, Energy Research & Social Science, Volume 37.

Guilhot, L. (2022). “An analysis of China's energy policy from 1981 to 2020: Transitioning towards to a diversified and low-carbon energy system”. Energy Policy, Volume 162.

Haas, T. (2019). Struggles in European Union energy politics: A gramscian perspective on power in energy transitions. Energy research & social science. 4866–74.

Hibbs, M. (2022). “Why Europe Is Looking to Nuclear Power to Fuel a Green Future”. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Jacobs, D. (2012). “The German Energiewende history, targets, policies and challenges”. Renewable Energy Law and Policy Review, 3(4), 223-233.

Karim, R. Karim, M. E. Sukki, F. M. Abu-Bakar, S. H. Bani, N. A. Munir, B. A. Kabir, A. Ardila-Rey, J.

Masud, A. A. (2018). “Nuclear Energy Development in Bangladesh: A Study of Opportunities and Challenges”. Energies. Kuala Lumpur.

Kern, F. & Smith, A., (2008). "Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy transition policy in the Netherlands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4093-4103, November.

Kramm, L. (2012). The german nuclear phase-out after fukushima: peculiar path or an example for others.

Renewable Energy Law and Policy Review, 3(4), 251-262.

Krauss, C. (2022). “Energy Markets Are Jittery as Russia-Ukraine Tensions Drag On”. The New York Times.

February 14.

Leman, M. (2022). “6 reasons why nuclear energy is not the way to a green and peaceful world”.

Greenpeace.

Lepretre, M. Argyraki, V. (2015). Energy Agencies in Europe. Results and perspectives. Executive Agency for SMEs. European Commission.

Los Angeles Public Library (1969). Drawing of Rancho Seco Nuclear power plant. Calisphere.

Magwood IV, W. D. (2021). “The role of nuclear energy in mitigating climate change”. Nuclear Energy Agency.

Office of Nuclear Energy. (2021). “Nuclear Power is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It's Not Even Close”.

Partridge, J. (2022). “Russia cuts gas supplies to Netherlands and firms in Denmark and Germany”.

European Union. The Guardian. May 31.

Pedraza, J. M. (2019). “Current Status and Perspective in the Use of Coal for Electricity Generation in the North America Region”. Conventional Energy in North America.

Petrescu, F. I. Apicella, A. Petrescu, V. V. Kozaitis, S. Bucinell, R. Aversa, R. Lebdeh, T. M. (2016).

“Environmental Protection through Nuclear Energy”. American Journal of Applied Sciences.

Regulation (EU) 2018/1999. (2018). Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action.

REPowerEU Plan. (2022). COM/2022/230 final. European Commission. Brussels.

Ritchie, H. (2021). “Energy: Key Charts”. Our World in Data.

Rutledge, K. McDaniel, M. Teng, S. Hall, Hilary. Ramroop, T. Sprout, E. Hunt, J. Boudreau, D. Costa, H.

(2022). “Nuclear Energy”. National Geographic.

Scholten, D., & Bosman, R. (2016). “The geopolitics of renewables; exploring the political implications of renewable energy systems”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 103, 273-283.

Shackley, S. & Green, K. (2007). “A conceptual framework for exploring transitions to decarbonised energy systems in the United Kingdom”. Energy (Oxford). 32 (3), 221–236.

Sopher, P. (2015). Lessons Learned from Germany’s Energiewende: The Political, Governance, Economic, Grid Reliability, and Grid Optimization Bedrock for a Transition to Renewables. Renewable Energy Law and Policy Review, 6, 99-112.

Sorkin, A. R. (2022). “Russia’s Ukraine Invasion Raises Questions About Energy Policy”. Business & Policy.

The New York Times. February 26.

Statista (2021). “French people opinion on nuclear energy 2019”. Statista Research Department. October 19.

Thurner, P. W. (2017). “Germany: Party System Change and Policy Reversals”. In: Muller, W. C. Thurner, P. W. (2017). The Politics of Nuclear Energy in Western Europe. Oxford University Press

Tony Chafer. Politics and the perception of risk: A study of the anti-nuclear movements in Britain and France West European Politics, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1985.

Wang, J. Kim, S. (2018) “Comparative Analysis of Public Attitudes toward Nuclear Power Energy across 27 European Countries by Applying the Multilevel Model”. Sustainability. Honam University.

Weisbach, D. Ruprecht, G. Huke, A. Czerski, K. Gottlieb, S. and Hussein, A. (2013). “Energy intensities, EROIs, and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants”. Institut fur Festkorper-Kernphysik.

Berlin.

Wettengal, J. (2022). “Gas pipeline Nord Stream 2 links Germany to Russia, but splits Europe”. Journalism for the energy transition. Clean Energy Wire. April 20.

Wettengal, J. (2022). “Germany and the EU remain heavily dependent on imported fossil fuels”. Journalism for the energy transition. Clean Energy Wire. March 14.

Wettengel, J. 2020. A (very) brief timeline of Germany's Energiewende. Journalism for the Energy Transition. Clean Energy Wire.

World Nuclear (2022). Nuclear Power in Germany. Country Profiles.

World Nuclear Association. (2021). “Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Electricity”.

Zvar, M. (2018). Nuclear energy and security of supply. iEnergy.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1:

Infrastructure Issue and key IAEA document Infrastructure topic 1. National Position

‘National Position on a new nuclear power programme’

- Issue of national position

- Identifying and involving stakeholders - Implementing the national decision 2. Nuclear Safety

‘Establishing the Safety Infrastructure for a nuclear power programme’

- National policy and safety strategy - Global safety regime

- Legal framework - Transparency openness - Management for safety - Radiation protection - Safety assessment - Fuel management 3. Management

‘Responsibilities and Capabilities of Owner/Operators in the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power’

‘The Management System for Nuclear Installations’

- Attributes of an owner/operator - Owner organizational structures

- Role of the owner/operator in the nuclear power programme

- Managing growth and change - Interface with stakeholders - Nuclear installation, design etc 4. Funding and Financing

‘Costing Methods and Funding Schemes for Radioactive Waste Disposal Programmes’

- Waste Management - Cost estimate method - Risks and uncertainties - Work Breakdown structure 5. Legal Framework

‘Handbook on Nuclear Law’

- Objective of nuclear law - Principles of nuclear law

- Legislative processes for nuclear law - Licensing, enforcement

- Radiation protection

- Emergency preparedness and response - Mining and miling

- Nuclear liability

- Export and import controls 6. Safeguards

Guidance for States Implementing Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols

- State safeguards

- Provision of information

- Nuclear material changes, exports and imports 7. Regulatory Framework - Governmental, legal and regulatory framework