Are Belgian nuclear power plants closing now, or not (yet)?

More than seventeen years ago it was already laid down by law to close the nuclear power stations. Nevertheless, there is still doubt about whether or not the Belgian nuclear power plants will continue to operate after 2025. It is the successive governments that have maintained this uncertainty. Yet today there is almost unanimity about the closure of five of the seven nuclear reactors.

Changeable decisions

Belgium commissioned seven nuclear reactors for electricity production in the period 1975-1985. Four along the Scheldt in Doel and three along the Maas in Tihange. In 2003, the Verhofstadt government 1 decided that their operating license would not be renewed after 40 years. That meant that Doel 1 and 2 and Tihange 1 had to close in 2015. Doel 3 in 2022, Tihange 3 in 2023. And Doel 4 and Tihange 3 in 2025.

In 2009, the Van Rompuy government concluded an agreement with operator and main owner Engie Electrabel, without providing a transparent explanation, to extend the life of the three oldest reactors by ten years. Two years later, the Di Rupo government came back for Doel 1 and 2. The subsequent Michel government decided at the end of 2014 to give those two reactors an extra ten years at and after the last minute (Electrabel had already started decommissioning). Fear of electricity shortages up to even partial failure of the Belgian grid on cold and dark winter days was an important motivation for this.

The current coalition agreement confirms the closure of all nuclear reactors by December 1, 2025 … unless the electricity supply would be compromised. In light of the changeable decisions of previous governments, this means that nothing is really certain yet.

Final closure of 5 reactors

Or right? Proponents of nuclear energy also seem to have resigned themselves today to the final shutdown of the five oldest reactors. The first to be dealt with for this under the current law is Doel 3, on 1 October 2022. The reactors that could possibly continue to exist are Doel 4 and Tihange 3, currently licensed until 2025. The current De Croo government only wants to discuss this. November 2021 make a (new) decision. Last week, Electrabel put pressure on the boiler. It then emerged that, on the basis of the government’s decision in principle to abandon nuclear power, it no longer invested in activities to extend the lifespan of nuclear reactors. It is studying possible investments in new gas-fired power stations.

Long procedures

‘An operating license is subject to numerous technical, legal and financial requirements. For example, every new amendment to the nuclear exit law must be preceded by an environmental impact study with cross-border public consultation, ‘says Nele Scheerlinck, spokeswoman for Engie Electrabel. ‘That takes a lot of time. Moreover, the technical part also requires a lot of preparation. We have to submit an investment plan to the FANC – the Belgian regulator for the nuclear sector – and draw up a schedule. This planning also includes the purchase of fuel rods. Their specifications are different for each reactor. Orders must be placed at least thirty months in advance. ‘ The door will remain ajar. If the government does extend operating permits, reactors can be restarted by the end of 2026 at the earliest.

The Constitutional Court ruled in 2020 that the extension of the operating license of Doel 1 and 2 in 2020 was illegal. After all, the Belgian government did not precede it by a cross-border environmental impact study and public consultation. ‘This means that in the future there can be no more discussion about the need for such a study and public consultation for possible new expansions. They have to anyway, ‘says Scheerlinck.

No technological preference

“We have no preference for a particular technology to generate electricity,” emphasizes Peter Claes, spokesman for Febeliec. But his association, which defends the interests of Belgium’s largest industrial electricity consumers, fears that closing all Belgian reactors by 2025 would mean an economic drama. ‘The most suggested alternative, a mechanism to subsidize the construction of new gas-fired power stations, will never be completed on time,’ says Claes. ‘The construction of such a power station will take at least 24 months after all permits have been obtained and the orders placed.’

The profitability of new gas-fired power stations also depends on a support mechanism. ‘Europe can regard such a mechanism as prohibited state aid. No investor will want to commit to this as long as there is no certainty that Europe will not recover any aid funds.’

Member of Parliament Bert Wollants (N-VA), former chairman of the federal parliamentary committee on Energy, doubts that the system will provoke sufficient investments in gas-fired power stations or other production infrastructures and whether the system will be ready by 2025. ‘It is almost possible It will take one and a half years for the European Commission to approve the mechanism. Only then can construction work begin. ‘

Wollants also fears that the federal government will pass on costs to support the construction of new gas plants through an additional form of taxation on electricity bills. ‘But even when it happens through general taxes, it will have an effect on electricity prices.’

Interconnection

In recent years, much work has been done on new connections for the international exchange of electricity with the United Kingdom and Germany. ‘We can use that capacity, but then we become more dependent on other countries,’ says Claes. In practice, this means in the first place that at times of peak demand, prices in Belgium can rise sharply, while nuclear power stations today provide a virtually stable basic supply. ‘The closure of nuclear power plants can lead to uncertainty and strongly fluctuating market prices. To guarantee a stable supply, suppliers will have to purchase electricity on the international market at peak times or use very expensive domestic capacity. Belgian consumers will pay a risk premium for this. This jeopardizes the competitive position of our industry, ”said the Febeliec spokesman.

The N-VA advocates keeping the youngest two nuclear power plants open for at least ten years. ‘Otherwise, Belgium will become one of the dirtiest electricity producers in Europe. The CO2 emissions from nuclear power plants are almost zero, in contrast to those from natural gas, ‘Wollants explains. ‘Moreover, there is a chance that you can build sufficient gas-fired power stations (and other capacity) if the need is less. Three proposals are already circulating today, insufficient to cover the closure of all nuclear power stations. ‘

Decentralized system

‘The nuclear exit is an important means of switching from a central energy supply to a decentralized system, with local energy communities for renewable energy generation,’ says energy specialist Benjamin Clarysse of Bond Beter Leefmilieu (BBL). BBL welcomed the Parliament resolution in July which outlined the framework of the support mechanism for new gas-fired power plants. At the same time, BBL warns that this measure may only be introduced when necessary and must be limited to what is strictly necessary.

The environmental movement is putting pressure on the regional authorities. ‘The regions must now take their responsibility for security of supply within their competences and focus on more renewable energy, demand management, efficiency, storage and combined heat and power. It would be a painful failure of the Belgian system if federal subsidies for gas-fired power stations were to be approved because the regions have failed. ‘

No illusions

‘Whether we keep the two least old reactors open or not does not change the long-term perspective in which we have to invest massively in energy efficiency and renewable energy, for clean electricity, but certainly also for sustainable heat by 2050,’ notes general manager Dirk Van Evercooren, general director at ODE, the Flemish sector organization for sustainable energy. ‘It is an illusion to think that everything will be fine if we let two reactors run for ten years longer. A recent study by Energyville also points out that if we keep two reactors open, we will still be on the bad side of the European middle bracket in terms of CO2 emissions by 2030. The real problem is too low an ambition, coupled with permitting procedures that are too long. ‘

Nor should we assume that we can compare cheap nuclear energy with expensive renewable energy. Keeping reactors operational requires enormous investments to keep them sufficiently safe and reliable. We’d better invest that money in the energy transition now, ‘says Van Evercooren.