Blog

Sustainable development is -very short- that development for a generation to make its living in such way that it doesnot compromise the future of next generations. That means clean air, water, soil, the environment. But, one can also compromise another with risks. Risks according to that clean air, water and soil.

A risk consist of two factors: the chance of an occurence and the size of that occurrence.
Two examples. The risk on a terrorist attack killing 10 people in Rotterdam during this year, would be a big occurence. But still the risk is low, as the chance is extremely small. But-next example- the risk that 10 people will be killed in that same year in Rotterdam by traffic, is way bigger. This is because the chances are big, by its frequency. Evidence: It happens nearly every year in Rotterdam.
By the way, the risk on being killed by a terrorist attack, feels much bigger -it is scary! But in this article the risk is treated without emotions, to keep it rational and debatable.

Politicians and sustainable development

Sustainable development means in short: That development that doesnot compromise the development of future generations. Nearly all countries of the world have agreed on that.
Since the French government managed to get the European Union to decide that nuclear energy would be ‘sustainable energy’ in Europe, more politicians take the liberty to promote nuclear energy as the best alternative to fossils. There are even politicians going for the construction of new reactors, before they know risks on disasters and the risks on nuclear waste. And, the radioactivity of it breaks down slower than most of our decision makers seem to comprehend. See the picture below; the risk impact counts for many many generations.

Would our decision makers not know all this – or they don’t care at all?
It looks like the latter, because they never checked the alternatives with a short half time. I could find one little exception. In 2020 the Dutch government wrote a letter to the Dutch Parliament that a research will be done on Thorium as an alternative to Uranium. The nuclear radiation of the waste could possibly be thousands of years shorter and the waste would be way better recycable. (by the way, the Wiki page on Thorium doesnot mention these facts). And, Thorium is abundant everywhere in the world, whilst Uranium is rare and ‘big business’.

Meanwhile, the decision makers go for the Uranium/Plutonium.

We have to accept that in countries like France, the UK, Spain, Slovakia and the Netherlands, the majority of the decision makers think and act according to the new defined European ‘sustainability’ and they have left the original sustainability as defined and agreed upon in 1988.

This means that they decided, not to take the risks into account that can be experienced by the next some thousand generations have to live with the risk we leave behind.

Finlands integrated waste treatment

The construction costs of a nuclear power plant are always higher than planned. Now, Finland is the first country that also set the requirement to include the waste treatment in a sustainable way. Geologically, Finland has the luck that the earth crest is really calm, and without any earthquakes. They are able to bury the waste. They managed to create a system till half a kilometer underground, and then cover the nuclear waste with clay layers and concrete plugs.

Finland managed to develop a nuclear waste system that would be sustainable. It is a system to deepbury it, half a kilometer under ground, in a geologically called ‘calm’ earth crest.

The difference between the quoted and the real costs was extreme, and never published. But, to give an idea: The Finnish construction was schemed on one decade, but it has cost an extra decade to do all the unforeseen work.

The nuclear waste appears not to be stored safe

Even nowadays, not every country acts like Finland. In 2024 the Dutch government decided to go for the construction of at least one nuclear power plant. Without any sustainable solution for the nuclear waste. And, in this same year, there have been dozens of attacks on Dutch infra structure, varying from large cyber attacks to concrete destructions on our energy infra structure, such as cables on the seabottom. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/jaarverslagen/2025/04/22/mivd-openbaar-jaarverslag-2024

The words of COVRA on its website: “All radioactive waste is safely stored by COVRA for at least one hundred years in specially designed buildings. The waste is isolated in a central location where it can be controlled and monitored, so that safety is guaranteed over that long period.

There is no further explanation about the word ‘guaranteed’. A package of (most probably) lead and concrete, garantees no leaks for one hundred years for sure, if one keeps it here. But an attack with explosives would ask for a much much stronger protection, like some meters of material.

The text continues: Ultimately, the waste must be placed in a final storage facility. This ensures that the waste will still be outside the human habitat for thousands of years.”

The “final storage facility” is not there yet. I could perhaps be somewhere in salt mines, but it still has to be found, found out, and decided.

Only the design and construction for such a storage has cost Finland many millions more than was foreseen.

It seems a nuance, but the “thousands of years” could better be replaced for “many thousands of years”, just to be aware of the length of time. A geological time. This storage requires to be free of earthquakes and other moves of the earth crest.

The COVRA writes on its website that all the nuclear waste is centrally managed on one place. COVRA even includes the address, on the website and in Google Maps (includes the coordinates). So easy does it, the enemy only needs one missile.
It is situated in South West Holland. With the prevailing South Western winds, the fallout will cover the people, soil, builings, everything, of half the Netherlands. And the wind doesnot stop at the German border. In the following years the illnesses and deaths will rise.

That is not safe, not even for the current generation of people.

Conclusion on the waste risks

The treatment of nuclear waste, is often not integrated nor worked out to the very detail, and never worked out with a sustainable risk for the next thousands of generations. Finland is the exception, where the waste treatment is integrated. That has doubled the planning time and the costs. But, Finland is the exception.

If we put the nuclear waste treatment in the Netherlands as an example:

1. It is not sustainable at all; the risks are for the many thousands of generations after us.
2. It is unsafe already for the current generation, since Russia attacks Europe on its infra structure.

The problem is not the COVRA. This company only is the symptom.

The problem is that our decision makers seem to run away with an idea, convert that to a plan for construction. But it lacks the necessary sustainability, the common sense one mostly learns from the parents and friends.

It is reasonable to conclude that our decision makers don’t act with this common sense. .

Best is to prevent that our decision makers can deal with risks and great dangers anyway. The best and only option is to power your energy needs from renewables-with-battery in your household. Most probably it is also cheaper.

In the next article the focus will on the cause of our… eh.. disinformation? Naivety? Neglectance?

For many years there is an annual status report on nuclear energy and the plants in the world. It is called ‘World Nuclear Energy Status Report’. It contains questions about the number of plants, the development and of course the assesment of the future.
Also the competition with the renewables (solar and wind energy) is part of it.

Since the renewables become cheaper every year, it is time to check for our costs. Would it be possible, affordable, welcome and sustainable to take solar, with a big battery bank, as an alternative for nuclear power?

In this blog we compare the costs.

The development of nuclear reactors

The picture here under shows the number of nuclear reactors now under construction.

Of the 59 plants under construction shown here, there are 27 in China. Is that a lot? Well, last year in China only 1 GigaWatt was added by nuclear power, versus 200 GigaWatt on solar power.

The USA, the early adaptor of nuclear power, did not build any reactors.

So actually, nuclear energy seems to be unattractive.

In the picture here under, there is an overview of all nuclear power plants existing in the world.

The graph clearly shows an upheaval from 1985. This is caused by the Chernobyl disaster in April 1986 and the following public opinion. This will be discussed in the next blog.

But, the nuclear power never became big again. And, from 2024 we even see it going down. Or, is that incidental?

Further development of solar panels and batteries vs nuclear

Year after year the solar panels become cheaper and more efficient. In general, the renewable energy cost less than the fossil and the nuclear energy. We see the same with the batteries: they become cheaper, with a higher efficiency. The costs per kWh sharply become less. We donot see this sharper curve on the technology of nuclear energy.

Nuclear power versus solar+battery power

The nuclear power plant has always the great advantage that it delivers power when there is no sun (and no wind). The only operational issue is that you can not easily stop it and switch it on again. A complete stop or start up, costs a lot of energy.

The solar panel and battery bank don’t have that ‘start-stop’ problem. When there is sun, electricity flows into the battery (and into the network) and when the sun stops shining, the battery takes over.

On the other hand, the battery is limited and the nuclear power plant can run endlessly. That is true for now, but it is getting less true. Since the solar and battery technology is getting more efficient and also cheaper, you simply install big battery banks. So, when there is no sun for one day, it is no problem. And for the near future, and with the current development, the battery banks will be bigger. The real relevance of the nuclear power plant gets smaller.

India just installed a solar+battery power plant which delivers cheaper electricity than a coal combustion plant, while the latter had always been the cheapest.

Net congestion and the home battery

Countries in the transition from gas to electricity, always have the problem of net congestion: it can happen that there is too much electricity running through the network. That would stop the whole system, so there is limited electricity. A complete new infrastructure would cost hunderds of billions, which is simply not possible.

A net congestion creates a lot of damage. A Dutch study shows that a company can not expand, caused by net congestion, it costs that company 11.000 Euro per mWh. This damage is about a hunderd fold of the normal tariff for a mWh.

But every installation of a home battery and solar panels, will relieve the net. This would save a lot of money for replacing cables in the streets, junction boxes, fuses, electricity stations, everything.

The nuclear energy however, would do the opposite, it creates net congestion. All infra structure, from power plant to the households and companies, have to be made larger, heavier. Only in the Netherlands this would cost tens of billions.

Waste costs and ‘external’ costs

The value of the solar panels and (lithium) batteries lowers, year by year. Finally, it will cost a bit to dismantle them. In general, the complete costs from the cradle to the grave are not high, and known and foreseeable.
The dismantling of a nuclear power plant costs a lot, if we want to prevent the risks on big environmental damage and great safety risks. Although they are foreseeable, they are seen as ‘external costs’. Only, when in 1997 the nuclear plant of Dodewaard was stopped and the new owner would take care for it, the dismantling costs were accepted to be internal costs. For safely reasons, they have to wait till 2045 to dismantle it. And now, it appears that the owner doesnot have enough money for it. Will the owner become bankrupt? This is an example that the costs for dismantling could still become ‘external costs’, meaning that it is the taxpayer who has to pay it.

Also on the risks of nuclear disasters the costs are categorised as ‘external costs’. Although the accidents occur already since the existence of the first plants. Meanwhile, we statistically know that these costs are there, but you will not find them in the business case.

Then, there are the costs of sustainable nuclear waste treatment. In particular the final dump is often an unsolved problem. The costs are mostly underestimated, or pushed forward. But, after so many accidents, and with much nuclear waste on unsustainable places, more and more people open the eyes and see these costs. In Finland a plant is built with the inclusion of the nuclear waste treatment. See this film . The construction time and costs doubled. We are talking many billions here.

Finally, it is remarkable that in the USA everybody seems to have abandoned the nuclear energy. The USA has a strong private law jurisdiction. This gives a victim of an accident the opportunity to an claim enormous amounts of money from a company responsible for the cause of an accident. Here appears a relation: if one already includes the costs of a risk for the claims from an accident, a nuclear power plant could be way to expensive.

Conclusion

If we really count all costs, so including the dismantling and the disaster management, the solar+battery combination wins already.

Still, politicians who are in favour of nuclear energy plants, externalise the waste treatment and risk costs, and put forward the argument that nuclear technology is ‘state of the art technology’. Most probably the development of solar and battery economy will make nuclear technology old fashioned.

But before that happens, you can read the next blogs in the following weeks, which will address the risks, the sustainability and the politicians dealing with it.

First we saw ­solar panels on the roofs on campers. That must have been in the early 1980s.

In these days, only a fool could think that it would be enough to drive a car with it.

But, fools inspire!

Already in 1987 the World Solar Challenge started: the challenge was to cross Austalia on solar power only. Who is the fastest?

So, also in times of bad politics,we can remain optimistic. Because when the will stays, people continue to improve, to innovate. No worries.