Exit from nuclear power in Belgium: a planned suicide
The planned exit from nuclear power in Belgium is an energy and social suicide that causes unrest.
By Philippe Charlez.
Belgium will decide in a few weeks to get out of nuclear power today organized him half of his electricity. In the medium term, it would be replaced by new generation gas power stations. But, according to ECOLO, in the longer term, Belgium should make the green turn that everyone dreams of. The gas would then be abandoned in favor of a 100% renewable mix (ENR). Does this strategy stem from a real climate logic or does it constitute a planned suicide for the flat country?
The energy transition will first and foremost be an electrical transition, with most thermal equipment eventually being replaced by electrical equipment. This great replacement will induce a significant increase in electricity consumption. In Belgium, it should double by 2050, going from 90 TWh to 200 TWh.
the ” Belgian energy outlook 2050 “ published in 2019 by the energy platform of the FABI had considered that the part of ENR in the energy mix could not yield 50% but from 35%, the intermittences likely to undergo serious instabilities in the network. Technically feasible, would a mix of 35% renewable and 65% gas be economically viable?
The utopia of a 100% green electricity generation
Considering load factors of 20% for onshore wind power and 50% for offshore wind power, 35% of renewable energy will be implemented by 2050 40 GW of onshore wind power (i.e. 20,000 equivalent wind turbines). of 2 MW) or 16 GW of marine wind (2000 equivalent 8 MW wind turbines). When we compare to the 2019 situation (8.5 GW of renewable energy producing 13.9 TWh of electricity with a load factor of 18%), the race towards 35% renewables in 2050 represents a real industrial and societal challenge.
These figures also unambiguously succeed the utopia of a 100% green electricity generation. The needs would then reach 114 GW in onshore wind power or 45 GW in marine wind power. The number of equipment would become delusional: he asked to install an onshore wind turbine every 700 meters over the 30,000 km2 of Belgian territory or a marine wind turbine every 11 meters over the 65 km of the coastline.
A 100% green electricity generation would not however protect against intermittences, the Belgian having to adapt its electricity consumption to the vagaries of nature. It would mean the inexorable entry into a society of degrowth.
An increase in the price of MWh
Without nuclear power, the remaining 65% would come from gas and would require the implementation of 18 GW of TGV power plants. By 2050, Belgium would import 220 TWh of gas, the combustion of which would emit 45 million tonnes of CO2. A strategy that does not really go in the direction of the story. But above all, the bill would be very steep for Belgian citizens.
Since 2018, the gas markets have witnessed a drop in supply linked to the weakness of investments but above all to a frantic increase in demand both in Europe and in South-East Asia.
As a result, since the start of 2021, gas prices have soared on European markets, exceeding the fateful threshold of 100 euros / MWh in recent weeks. If some economists should this rise as cyclical, all indicators (reserves, production, demand) that the gas medium should not lower the price in previous years. Along with gas, carbon markets have also exploded.
Mechanically, the electric gas-powered MWh has now reached 180 euros. Such prices would lead in 2050 to an annual stratospheric bill of 23 billion euros. Enough to forever burden the balance of payments of the flat country. It is interesting to compare this price to that of the nuclear MWh “Streamlined” around 65 euros and that of the EPR which despite the explosion in its costs should eventually converge around 100 euros.
By economically justifying the exit from nuclear power by “Capacity remuneration mechanism” Belgium to recover part of its gas investments, the Minister of Energy is showing culpable ignorance. For gas generation, the cost of the installations only represents a tiny part of the cost per MWh, while the cost of fuel covers more than 95%. For nuclear, on the contrary, it is the installations that make the price while the fuel (uranium) only counts for a few percent. There is therefore no comparison between the inflationary risks linked to the volatility of gas prices and those of uranium.
The unilateral choice of gas will amount to selling off hard-won energy independence. As for the argument “That a very limited part of our gas comes from Russia and that Belgium has, thanks to the port of Zeebrugge, a regasification capacity of 17 million m³ per year” it is not admissible either. The price of liquefied natural gas, driven up by Chinese demand, is now higher than the price of Russian gas.
By leaving nuclear power and heading headlong towards gas, Belgium is heading towards programmed economic suicide but also towards serious social unrest. Emmanuel Macron who at mid-term had been confronted with the movement of yellow vests knows something about it. Its recent about-face on nuclear power is strongly linked to the recent surge in gas and electricity prices. It attests to its conviction as to the structural nature of the price increase.
Belgium will certainly not be able to implement 18 GW of nuclear power and will have to rely in part on gas generation. By streamlining its existing reactors (12 euros / MWh of additional cost) and launching the construction of 4 EPRs, 2050 electricity consumption would then be based on a mix ” Rainbow “ 35% renewable energies, 45% nuclear and 20% gas. Arc-en-ciel was the name of the coalition which in 2003 decided to phase out nuclear power. A fair return of history.