Atomic energy questions are being asked of voters. This might well dictate energy policy for the next couple of decades, so why are governments asking people what they think about nuclear power?
Some countries do not have nuclear power because citizens were asked in the past whether they wanted atomic energy or not. Many voted no because of the fallout from incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Earlier this week, Kazakhstan organised a referendum on whether to start building nuclear reactors. The public voted in favour of the motion and the government will now proceed with trying to attract investments to the Central Asian nation.
It is a significant moment for nuclear power as Kazakhstan has been at the forefront of global non-proliferation efforts. During the Soviet Union, the country was used as a weapon’s testing hub and local communities have suffered from radioactive fallout ever since.
Now that the link between nuclear energy and nuclear bombs has been severed, Kazakhstan hopes to leverage the fact that it is by far the world’s largest producer of uranium fuel to its advantage.
If a nuclear plant is eventually built and commissioned, then the country will not have to worry about where to source the reactor fuel. It has an abundant supply of it in its backyard.
In the long-run, it will be interesting to observe which partners Kazakhstan chooses for the project. Ties with Moscow have been frayed in recent years but are not completely broken, so Russian expertise and cheap loans could be tempting.
Then there is France, which has already held talks with Kazakhstan about securing uranium supplies for its fleet of nuclear plants. A supply deal could well include knowledge sharing or even a full-blown construction agreement.
China and South Korea are also in the mix, so it could well turn into a bidding war between the concerned parties if the project does move ahead, which is far from a given where nuclear power is concerned.
It will be expensive. Estimates show that at least $10 billion will be needed to build the plant but that could well be an optimistic projection. Some Kazakhs that oppose nuclear power say that it would be better to double down on cheaper renewable energy instead. Those voices have, however, been largely silenced.
Meanwhile in Europe…
Kazakhstan is not the only country putting the nuclear question to the people. In November, Slovenians will be asked whether they support the construction of a second reactor at an existing plant located on the border with Croatia.
Slovenia actually co-owns the Krško plant with its neighbour and the reactor provides more than a quarter of Slovenia’s electricity and about 15% of Croatia’s. The Croatian government is in favour of expanding the plant if Slovenians vote in favour.
However, another neighbour, Austria, strongly opposes the plans. Austria’s constitution forbids nuclear power and it has opposed all EU-level policies that have aimed to funnel investment towards atomic energy.
Earlier this year, the Austrian government called for an in-depth impact assessment of the environmental risks posed by the reactor expansion, given that the Krško plant is within 100 kilometres of its borders.
The government is pressing on regardless. This week, Prime Minister Robert Golob welcomed the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and during that visit said that “nuclear energy is part of the solution to the climate crisis, not part of the problem.”
Italy also borders Slovenia and its communities there are being consulted on the plans. Italians were also asked in the 1980s whether they wanted to maintain nuclear power in the energy mix. The answer was no, spurred by the Chernobyl disaster.
But now the government of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is looking to introduce laws that will allow for nuclear power development, whether that is full-scale reactors or smaller modular reactors is unclear. It is also unknown whether a referendum will be organised again.
Depending on the result of the Slovenian vote, whether an investment decision is made by 2027 as hoped by the government and what its neighbours decide to do, Krško could well be a model for other pro-nuclear countries to follow.
The cross-border nature of the project, which came about during the Yugoslav period when Slovenia and Croatia were technically a part of the same state, could well be a dynamic that others might look to replicate.
Obviously there are inherent challenges in governments teaming up on multi-billion-euro megaprojects but given the rising costs of building new nuclear capacity, it might soon be the only way to get enough funding and reduce enough risk to increase atomic energy output.
Perhaps Italy could get around its non-nuclear problem by investing in Slovenian reactors and importing the power across the border? Nuclear advocates will probably have to get creative if they want to overcome some of these barriers.
Want more updates and analysis of what is happening in the world of energy and climate? Interested in finding a job in the sector or more information about public tenders? Sign up to our Energy Rundown newsletter here!
