The coalition agreement between D66, CDA, and VVD, published on January 30, 2026, states that at least 4 nuclear power plants will be built. The locations Eemshaven, Borssele, Terneuzen, and Maasvlakte are mentioned. But nuclear energy is not a good idea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The central government states1<\/sup>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe cabinet is opting for more nuclear energy for various reasons. Among other things because:nuclear power plants are a reliable<\/strong> source of energy that supply energy all day long;<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 nuclear energy makes the Netherlands less vulnerable<\/strong> when there is a shortage of other (clean) energy sources;<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022nuclear energyensures that the Netherlands generates its own energy<\/strong> and needs to import less energy from abroad;<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 very little CO<\/strong>2<\/strong><\/sub> is released during the generation of nuclear energy;<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 nuclear power plants require relatively little space<\/strong> compared to other clean energy sources, such as wind farms;<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 the Netherlands needs all clean energy sources to achieve the climate goals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, the government is investigating the potential of small modular nuclear reactors (SMR<\/strong>s). There are currently no SMRs in Europe. With this research, the government aims to determine what opportunities SMRs offer for the nuclear sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In response to the cabinet plans, Heman Damveld 1<\/a><\/sup> published \u201cthe factsheet nuclear waste and salt domes\u201d on March 26, 20262<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The benefits indicated in bold by the government are tested below against the information in the factsheet and some other sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. Reliable and less vulnerable<\/strong>. These two (synonyms?) terms mean that energy can be supplied during cloudy and\/or windless weather. Although solar energy and wind energy are not stable sources over ashort time period, they are sources for \u2018eternity\u2019. And that does not apply to uranium, just as it does not apply to fossil fuels, for that matter. The supply of uranium is finite. With current production, there is a supply for 130 years3<\/sup>. The Netherlands now plans to triple the number of nuclear power plants. If this is a global trend, the currently known reserves, both high-grade and lower-grade ore, will be depleted in 45 years! Estimates of how long the stockpile will last vary widely, based on assumptions about the amount of recoverable uranium, and range between 2036 and 20844,5<\/sup>. In short, the kind of reliability the government is aiming for is highly relative. Reliability is close to the concept of safety<\/strong>. Insurance companies consider nuclear energy unsafe, because in the paragraph regarding uncovered damage, besides war, damage is also referred to as \u201ccaused by or related to nuclear reactions\u201d are not covered. Incidentally, damage caused by nuclear installations is insured under the Nuclear Energy Act (the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance). The Nuclear Accidents Liability Act (WAKO) regulates liability for damage caused by nuclear installations6<\/sup>. Last but not least: a nuclear power plant requires maintenance; this is done by hundreds of people, takes weeks, and then the plant is shut down7<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. Stating that the Netherlands can generate its own energy<\/strong> without being dependent on energy imports creates a false impression. In fact, the Netherlands is dependent on uranium imports. The benefits mentioned by the government do not address the costs. Nuclear power plants are expensive. They consistently turn out to be three to four times more expensive. than initially planned. In contrast, the cost of electricity from solar or wind has fallen by 70% since 2009. Furthermore, the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) states that given the expected growth in the sector, ore with a lower uranium content will already have to be mined by 2040, which doubles the costs8<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3. Besides being a finite resource, uranium is also a polluting source that releases a lot of CO<\/strong>2<\/strong><\/sub>. For instance, the total CO2<\/sub> emissions from nuclear energy are 10 times higher than wind energy when construction and demolition of a nuclear power plant, the extraction and transport of the ore, and waste storage are taken into account2<\/sup>. Moreover, mining and purifying lower-grade ore requires more energy, resulting in CO2<\/sub> emissions and pollution. So nuclear energy is not that clean, and the problems surrounding the storage of nuclear waste are not mentioned at all. The House of Representatives has selected 7 salt domes for the storage of nuclear waste; all 7 of these are unsuitable2<\/sup>. They are located in Natura 2000 areas, which will be affected by the storage, or parts of villages must be demolished, or the depth of the dome is incorrect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4. The statement that nuclear energy takes up little space<\/strong> is misleading. It may be correct in the comparison with generating the same amount of solar energy in new solar parks to be constructed, but it masks the fact that residents may still have to make way for the storage of nuclear waste and that for two nuclear power plants also quite a lot of space is required, namely 130 hectares or 260 football fields2<\/sup>. And this does not even take into account the parking spaces needed for cars and living space for the construction workers who will have to live somewhere for all those years during the (long-term!) average 14.3 years construction7<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The smaller modular nuclear power plants, also known as SMRs<\/strong>, resonate strongly with parties in favor of nuclear energy. There is no single type of SMR. An SMR can range from small (the size of a shipping container) to relatively large (the size of the regular Borssele nuclear power plant). Two types are distinguished: light-water cooled SMRs and advanced SMRs. However, there is still very little information available regarding the latter, and nothing is mentioned about them in the government’s so-called knowledge module9<\/sup>. SMRs are built modularly; this means that these nuclear power plants are constructed more like factories. An SMR is assembled based on individually built components that are mass-produced in a factory. This means that SMRs may be cheaper to build than conventional nuclear power plants and lead times are shorter (but still at least 7 years!)10<\/sup>. Despite the advantages that are suggested (fast construction, cheaper, lower initial investment costs), there are still many uncertainties regarding costs, construction time, regulations, risk allocation, and commercial feasibility. An SMR often has a lower electrical output than the regular, conventional nuclear power plants already built worldwide. And according to the information in the factsheet, a relatively similar amount of uranium is required, so a relatively similar amount of radioactive waste is produced, and the same rules apply to decommissioning as for large nuclear power plants9<\/sup>. In short, it seems pointless to install SMRs because the plants are not safer or more efficient than large plants, and produce a relatively similar amount of nuclear waste.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This article relies heavily on publications by Herman Damveld. Herman Damveld became interested in energy issues around 1976 and joined various organizations that opposed nuclear energy. Among other things, he served on the Supervisory Board of the Co2ntramine Foundation, Platform around the Deep Subsurface and the Energy of the Northern Netherlands, established in 2010, which drew attention to the objections and dangers of underground CO2 storage. He also played a significant role in the opposition to the storage of radioactive waste in salt domes in Groningen and Drenthe. Damveld wrote countless books and reports11<\/sup> and, in addition, hundreds of articles in trade journals, weekly and daily newspapers on energy and later also on Groningen natural gas extraction, the earthquakes, and CO2 storage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1 Rijksoverheid | Kernenergie<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 3 <\/em>Factsheet kerncentrales, kernafval en zoutkoepels<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 4 Wise – Uranium; een eindige brandstof<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 5 Energy Policy, Volume155, August 2021, 112363 Nuclear energy – The solution to climate change?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 6 World’s uranium resources enough for the foreseeable future, say NEA and IAEA in new report<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 7 Wet aansprakelijkheid kernongevallen<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 8 Inspecteurs ANVS zien toe op onderhoud kerncentrale Borssele<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 9 Nieuwe kerncentrales tien keer duurder dan zon, en veel te laat<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 10 SMR-kennismodule 2025: nieuwe inzichten en onderwerpen<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 11 SMR’s (kleine modulaire kernreactoren)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 12 Zie onder andere Herman Damveld et. al. \u201cAtoomafval in beweging\u201d, uitgave Milieufederatie Groningen, 1982; Herman Damveld et.al. \u201cKernafval in zee of zout? Nee fout!\u201d, Greenpeace Amsterdam, 1994; Herman Damveld. \u201cTsjernobyl, 10 jaar later\u201d, Greenpeace Chernobyl Papers No.4, maart 1996; Herman Damveld & Robert Jan van den Berg, Nuclear waste and nuclear ethics, Laka Foundation, January 2000; Herman Damveld, \u201cTouwtrekken om radioactief afval. 25 Jaar plannen maken voor opslag in zoutkoepels Groningen, 2001<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n * Herman Damveld raakte omstreeks 1976 ge\u00efnteresseerd in energievraagstukken en sloot zich aan bij organisaties die zich verzetten tegen kernenergie<\/a>. Hij nam onder andere zitting in Raad van Toezicht van de in 2010 opgerichte Stichting Co2ntramine, Platform rond de diepe ondergrond en de energie van Noord-Nederland, die aandacht vroeg voor de bezwaren en gevaren van ondergrondse CO2<\/sub>-opslag. Hij speelde ook een belangrijke rol in het verzet tegen opslag van radioactief<\/a> afval in zoutkoepels<\/a> in Groningen en Drenthe, zie ook verantwoording<\/p>\n The coalition agreement between D66, CDA, and VVD, published on January 30, 2026, states that at least 4 nuclear power plants will be built. The locations Eemshaven, Borssele, Terneuzen, and Maasvlakte are mentioned. But nuclear energy is not a good idea. Cabinet plans The central government states1: \u201cThe cabinet is opting for more nuclear energy … Lees verder<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":3981,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":true,"iawp_total_views":9,"footnotes":""},"categories":[33,53],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3977","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","category-from-our-experts"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3977","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3977"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3977\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3983,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3977\/revisions\/3983"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3981"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3977"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3977"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3977"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}SMRs<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Acknowledgements<\/h2>\n\n\n\n