{"id":3002,"date":"2026-03-11T11:30:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-11T10:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/?p=3002"},"modified":"2026-03-10T15:04:15","modified_gmt":"2026-03-10T14:04:15","slug":"nuclear-energy-no-thanks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/en\/2026\/03\/11\/nuclear-energy-no-thanks\/","title":{"rendered":"Nuclear energy? No, thanks!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Like previous coalitions, the Jetten cabinet wants to focus on nuclear energy, but this is controversial and unsustainable. Uranium is finite, and expensive power stations require state guarantees. They have low emissions, but long-term nuclear waste storage is a problem. With a construction time of 15-20 years, they cannot contribute to decarbonisation quickly enough. Solar and wind energy can do so within months.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arjen Markus<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

With the new cabinet led by Rob Jetten, we are getting the third coalition in a row that wants to focus on nuclear energy as an important energy source. The capacity of the two planned power stations is more than four times that of Borssele, or 2 to 2.5 GW. 1<\/a><\/sup> By way of comparison, the coalition agreement also provides for the promotion of the construction of offshore wind farms with a combined capacity of 40 GW (page 24, ‘On course for climate and green growth’). Between 20 and 30 billion euros has been earmarked for the construction of these nuclear power stations, which is the task of the Dutch Nuclear Energy Organisation (NEO NL). Expected completion date: not before the second half of the 2030s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because the construction of such a plant requires a huge investment (see above) and always costs much more than initially budgeted, no company in the world is willing to finance it. Instead, the government, i.e. the taxpayer, has to provide the money. The new cabinet wants to prevent planning and budget overruns, but nuclear power plants have a reputation to uphold in this regard: construction is always delayed by years and costs multiply like few other complex construction projects. Just read the history of Hinkley Point C. 2<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nuclear energy as a clean source?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

We are often told that nuclear energy is clean (well, the fuel has to come from somewhere, Kazakhstan for example), safe (certainly, but if an accident happens, the consequences are serious), and reliable. As far as the latter is concerned, nuclear energy is said to be a safe fallback option when wind and solar energy are not available. That remains to be seen. Firstly, nuclear power stations are not flexible. They have to run at maximum capacity, otherwise they are not profitable. Secondly, they regularly break down due to maintenance or defects. Thirdly, these new power stations meet at most 15% of (current) energy needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bear in mind that future generations will have to take care of decommissioning the power stations without having ‘benefited’ from the energy supplied and without there still being a solution for the waste.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further objections<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

We could go on:<\/p>\n\n\n\n