The energy crisis has caused several countries to rethink their plans regarding the closure or decommissioning of nuclear power plants.
With coal practically gone and with no other 'closet bottom' alternative other than burning more gas, nuclear power, which so far this year has accounted for just over 20% of national electricity production, will begin to lower blind in 2027 in Spain.
Ignacio Araluce, president of the Nuclear Forum, is honest: "we do what the Government decides."
And, if it is necessary to postpone that closure, they will do it.
Of course, he explains that he is concerned about "the economic viability" of a source that he considers highly ideological.
In any case, he believes that society sees her with better eyes every time.
Have you had conversations with the Government regarding the contingency plan? We have not spoken with the Government again.
Of course, in the past, yes.
And, in fact, the Government spoke a couple of years ago removing the PNIEC.
This, together with the agreement between the owners of the Spanish nuclear power plants and Enresa for their future dismantling and sponsored by the Government, is the protocol of agreement that we have. That is, closure as of 2027. The PNIEC contemplates that the seven nuclear units will continue to function until year 27 and then they will be stopped one by one, spaced in time in such a way that, until year 30, four units will be stopped.
There will be three left that will also gradually stop according to the protocol - no longer the PNIEC, because it contemplates only until the year 30 - until the year 35.
That is what the Plan contemplates at the moment, which is in the review period because it has to be reviewed in 2023. We will see what the Government finally defines.
Because energy policy is not defined by the actors, it is defined by the Government.
We stick to what they decide. The review will come in a context of energy crisis in which we have sent a lot of energy, precisely, to France, the European nuclear bastion.
Have they taken the opportunity to recharge the reactors? It has been the other way around.
France has had a problem with practically half of the nuclear park.
And it has been a double problem.
On the one hand, during the pandemic they did minimal maintenance on some nuclear units for protection against Covid.
They postponed it and it's their turn now.
To this has been added a problem that they have found in some French units - in Spain they have been reviewed and there is nothing - due to corrosion under stress.
It is something very well known, not only in the nuclear industry, but in all the pipelines of the world.
For safety they have decided to stop and repair.
The postponed maintenance shutdown has coincided with this problem, which has caused them to have half of the nuclear park stopped. Is it sensible to abandon the nuclear plant in this horizon?
When we left coal, gas had to assume part of its weight. During the energy transition, everything that is stable, secure and predictable sources should be welcome.
Obviously, we are going to a huge generation of renewable energies in the future;
however, during the transition it is necessary to have stable sources until there is further development.
And it is a fundamental role of nuclear energy, which also helps the decarbonisation objectives because it does not emit CO2.
In Spain, each year it saves the emission of 20 million tons of CO2, an outrage.
They work more than 90% of the time and the remaining 10% is for refueling.
I would say that it is a source that it is very sensible to maintain. And if the closure is reconsidered? In Spain, the Government decided to close it and, for the moment, that closure is maintained.
I don't want to interfere with the government's energy policy, because it depends on the government.
If they ask us to continue, we are willing to lend a hand.
From a technical point of view, nuclear power plants can function for many, many more years.
In addition, it is necessary to take into account the degree of investment made in the Spanish nuclear power plants,
about 30 million euros a year in each unit to keep them in the latest state of the art.
Now, nuclear power plants work, like any business, if they are economically viable and that is what concerns us. In what sense? Nuclear power plants in particular have an excessive level of taxes, with redundant taxes.
In addition, most deal with production.
Not about benefits anymore;
not even for billing.
We must bear in mind that at this moment in Spain we have regulations that all nuclear energy has to be sold at less than 67 euros per megawatt hour when the market is at 200 or 300. And we are selling it that way, because if not, they crack us
And the European Commission is defining that the inframarginals have a sales limit of 180 euros/MWh to avoid the so-called benefits that fell from the sky.
Well, in Spain we have it at 67!
I don't know where those profits come from.
And if taxes were lowered, we could sell it even cheaper, because we pay between 15 and 17 euros per megawatt hour, plus the 9 euros we pay Enresa for waste and future dismantling. Could it be closed and then reopened? Or would we find ourselves with the same problems as Germany? It is much more complicated.
Germany barely has reactors in operation and they are deciding whether those units, which are 6% of the generation, would continue or not.
It is very difficult to restart those that stopped years ago because the maintenance and the necessary investments in updating have not been made, fuel has not been collected and there is a lack of professionals or they have to receive training. Returning to the present:
Could there be fuel supply problems due to the war? No, in principle there is no concern.
Obviously, the world is stressed in many aspects and any economic or energy issue is in question at this time.
Now, nuclear fuel has some characteristics that make it more secure from a supply point of view.
There are large uranium producers, some very stable.
Kazakhstan, Australia... There is a diversification of suppliers and potential fuel enrichment.
Besides, we charge the reactor every 18 months and once we charge it, it works another 18, you have no problems in that time.
In addition, it is required that the fuel be in the plant for at least two months before recharging.
And there is an additional stock of uranium required for all plants and another voluntary stock.
As a critical infrastructure, is there concern after what appears to be a sabotage in the Nord Stream pipeline? We are not particularly concerned as producers.
We are not going to go into details either: the Government has its measures and the nuclear power plants, too.
At this time there is no particular concern about an intentional attack on a nuclear power plant. Does the new green taxonomy clash with European plans to abandon nuclear power?
Aren't they contradictory messages? The taxonomy document says that the current plants can renew their operating permits beyond 2040 and the new ones have to have a construction permit before 2045. Then they have to be built.
With which, until 2100 there can be a lot of nuclear energy.
Whether we like it or we don't like it,
nuclear energy is absolutely necessary during the energy transition and that is what the document says.
So if we ask you to trade, you have to have adequate funding.
Everyone says that they have defined it as green, but that qualification does not appear in the document, which does not matter to us either.
What it says is that we need it.
We do not have enough development of renewables, storage or networks to do without this energy.Nuclear is possibly the most ideological source of energy: has it been harmed or benefited by it?In general, yes, it has a large ideological component and that, in many cases, has meant losses or barriers in its history.
What is happening now is that a part of society is beginning to see the good side of nuclear energy and not so much the bad side.
Before, in many sectors, only the bad was seen: what people considered insecurity, waste, etc.
Now they are seeing that in all Western countries, Spain included, nuclear power plants work very well. But accidents cannot be ignored... The last ones we have are Fukushima, in 2011, due to an earthquake and the second largest tsunami in the history of mankind.
And, despite everything, the radiological consequence has been minimal.
And Chernobyl was a completely different situation and a completely different reactor operated under completely different circumstances.
It is unrepeatable.
Much of society is beginning to think that the other plants in the world do not have any problem.
And we have been operating for 60 years!
For more than a year there has been a general change in society with which the ideological factor has diminished and the reality of nuclear power plants is being weighed more heavily. So, could society's perception be changed?
I mentioned the other big problem, which is waste. I understand that nobody likes waste, that is obvious.
Neither to the nuclear ones, nor to society as a whole: if they did not have radioactive waste, the nuclear ones would be the best.
But there are several nuances.
One, that the volume, compared to any other type of waste, is very small.
Second, there are storage systems that have been proven for many years.
Among them, the fuel element containers, which allow them to be stored and are highly secure.
And there are countries that already have deep geological storage,
which is to introduce these elements into geological formations at great depths in which there is no water or geological phenomena.
Therefore, they are stable for hundreds of millions of years.
Obviously, the best thing would be for us not to have waste, but what there is is perfectly controlled;
there is no residue that is controlled as much as the nuclear one.
You can put the ideological paste, but I can not remove it: one accepts it or one does not accept it.
Conforms to The Trust Project criteria
Know more
Chernobyl
European Comission
Nuclear energy
Environment
Energy crisis