3. Challenges to talking about Nuclear Energy 

Thore: EU recently classified nuclear energy as green energy. Several EU countries protested and are keeping their anti-nuclear stance. However, the Finland government, the green party, and climate activists agreed that nuclear energy is green energy and needed. Why does each country perceive nuclear energy so differently?

Ran: To understand this, we sent interview request emails to Green Political Parties (Greens in Finland, Alternativet, Grønnes & Momentum in Denmark), and Environment Activist Groups (Greenpeace, Noah, Extinction Rebellion) in both Denmark and Finland. Unfortunately, we haven’t received answers or received polite refuses. Although we both engaged in climate activism in Denmark, it was difficult to talk about nuclear energy among the activist groups. From this experience, we realize again that our perception is closed toward nuclear energy and how hesitating for people to talk about it openly. To talk about nuclear energy requires scientific knowledge and, more dangerously, it reveals & limits our political stance. 

Ran: One example is the phone call (3. August. 2022, 8 pm) that I received from NOAH in Denmark.

NOAH (Friends of the Earth Denmark) https://www.noah.dk/english is a renowned environmental NGO based in Denmark. The man from NOAH called me to say politely no thanks to our request. His reasoning for refusal was that the discussion about nuclear power had already ended during the 1990s. They have not changed their stance. He thinks it is not fruitful to discuss it again and only young people who did not participate in the 70~90ties discussion bring the topics up again. He recommended that I check all the records of the discussions on NOAH’s website from the last decades. Since NOAH has limited resources as an NGO, he can’t join all discussions. Another reason is that when nuclear waste from the reactor for the research centre Risø in Denmark arose, none of the neighbours wanted to keep the waste. He thinks Denmark does not need nuclear energy.

I could ask him further what he thinks of the IPCC report, the current EU’s decision (Nuclear as green energy), and change in Finland. However, I could not. He did not consider the importance of repeating the discussion as the situation changed. I wished to talk with other people from NOAH and tried to contact a new generation from them. 

Thore: Another short mail discussion (rather than refusal) is with Uffe, a danish politician from one of the green parties. (He was in Frie Grønne and recently decided to go back to Alternativet.) 

I sent the interview proposal to Frie Grønne.

Uffe responded to my interview questions shortly on email.

“Since I’m not standing in this election, I’ll skip it (interview). But answer ultra-short:

1) Nuclear power in Denmark is not relevant (for me). It is because we are a country that is so fortunate that if we utilized the potential of our wind and ocean energy, we are covered in terms of energy.

2) Will nuclear power be relevant elsewhere in the world/Europe? That will be given as the situation is today. But this form of energy is risky. Take just two current crises from this year:

1. The war in Ukraine, where their nuclear power plants become war targets, thus potentially opening up a real meltdown like Chernobyl.

2. the European rivers are drying up, which caused incalculable problems for over ten nuclear power plants in France that were normally cooled by the water from the rivers.

Hope the above makes sense.

Kh Uffe

I answered him with my arguments.

“Hi Uffe

That’s perfectly fine. Since you have now already started a discussion with me by email. I respond to your answers.

1) No, we (Denmark) are not energy-wise covered with wind energy today. Today, after more than 20 years of state-supported wind power development, we derive an average of 10% of our energy consumption from wind energy. This is not impressive when you know countries like Sweden and France for more than 40% of their total energy consumption from co2-free nuclear power. Considering wind energy, we will always need a backup, which today is fossils and biomass. Not smart when the (our government) plan is to go to zero with co2.

2) Nuclear power is not risky if you look at statistics (deaths per TW) and history. It is clearly seen that nuclear power is one of the safest sources of energy available today. And no, the nuclear power plant in Ukraine cannot become a new Chernobyl, as it is a completely different design. The nuclear power plants that exist today are, by the way, a different design that cannot melt down like Chernobyl.

3) Yes, the hot summer caused problems for some nuclear power plants in France with cooling. But the same problem hit all other power plants, so nothing is special about nuclear power. And it is primarily a design problem that you can plan for the next time there is a heat wave.

4) Where are the party that puts the environment and climate first, but at the same time, dares to listen to science? It unequivocally says that nuclear power is a necessity if we are to go to zero co2, try to keep our welfare and not destroy all our nature and landscape with energy machines. That party is missing from such a large group of voters. Hope it makes sense. Best wishes Thor 

https://www.fridaysforfuturefinland.fi/

Ran: Although we couldn’t reach any interviewees in Finland, Friday’s For Future Finland announced their opinion publicly on their website publicly. Strikingly, they show different opinions than their fellow environmental activists, such as Greta Thunberg. We share their text down here.

“Fridays for Future Finland does not fully stand behind this (https://www.euractiv.com/ section/climate-environment/opinion/code-red-for-humanity-or-green-light-for-more-climate-destruction) column.

Our fellow activists bring up the European Union’s taxonomy of sustainable energy sources, which is being worked on at the moment. They criticise the possible inclusion of fossil gas and nuclear power into the taxonomy, which would grant them the EU’s financial support and therefore speed up the transition into the energy alternatives in question.

We agree that fossil gas does not belong in the European Union’s taxonomy and should not, under any circumstances, be classified as a sustainable energy source. However, we disagree with the refusal to classify nuclear power as a taxon.

Nuclear power is not a perfect alternative, but its emissions are low. In our view, it is carbon dioxide emissions that pose a more serious threat than nuclear waste and are increasing the temperature of the planet. That is why we are ready to accept nuclear power as part of the energy mix. Now is not the time to rule out one low-emission energy source altogether; rather, we need to use all means available to fight the climate crisis. Opposition to nuclear power will complicate and increase the already enormous task. If we want to stop global warming below 1.5 degrees, we need every possible means, including nuclear power, to achieve that goal. One of the advantages of nuclear power is also the large amount of energy that can be produced by one plant.

The column criticises nuclear power for not being a sustainable or green option: we agree with some of this, but we also believe that the comparison with fossil gas is not justified. Nuclear power is neither problem-free nor a panacea, but in the midst of the climate crisis it is better to use this low-emission energy source than to risk the future of the entire planet.

For these reasons, Fridays for Future Finland is ready to grant nuclear power the sustainable investment classification of the European Union’s taxonomy and the investment subsidies it secures. (22.12.2021)”