The European Union wants to reduce 55% of its greenhouse emissions by 2030. This is due to a significant increase in renewable energies. However, Renewable energy sources face various challenges: production, price, insufficient subsidies and storage.
Until we can be renewable everything (or almost all). This is where one of the most recurring debates has been created in recent years: Nuclear energy, yes or no? The truth is that, in addition to debates, nuclear are a reality: as reflected in a report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)” The world generation of this type of energy grew considerably between 1985 and 2020 And from there, the consolidated values maintained.
The European and world context is therefore between suitability or not of nuclear energy and the consolidated reality of this technology. Practically all are convinced that renewable energy sources are the futureBut the doubt in itself is that the nuclear there is a kind of bridge Energy transition. In the COP28“ More than 20 countries promised their nuclear capacity up to 2050 in triple «His key role To reach zero greenhouse gas emissions and to maintain a limit of 1.5 ° C in temperature rise«.
This position coincides with that of the International Energy AgencyThat defend «The potential of nuclear energy as a source of electricity with low emissions as a supplement to renewable energy such as wind and solar energy in the transition to electrical systems with zero -Netto -emissions«.
2011
The debate about nuclear energy, underground in our country in recent years —The less of the accident of 2011-now dive for the Notes of the closure of the first reactor of the Almaraz Central, in Cáceres, planned for 2027.
This Tuesday the debate congress A non -law proposition of the PP in which the government encourages the nuclear closurealthough This is just one of the battery of Alberto Núñez Feijóo’s party, and also of Vox, for keeping this energy alive in Spain.
From the manager they point to Electricity owners of these central, those who “have decided the final calendar”An orderly agenda of closures that corresponded to Enresa, the public company of nuclear waste in 2019, according to the first vice president and minister of the ecological transition, Sara Aagesen, «The closure of the nuclear park is agreed by its own companies, this is not the government to put on the table by the closure“, He said.
The contradictions at the end of the nuclear: the central can reach 80 years
Ecologist groups usually support the nuclear closure, while the more rejection in affected areas such as Almaraz arouses. There, a demonstration against the Black -out of the Centrale collected Become a member of Vox, pp – with the participation of President Extremadura, María Guardiola – and PSOE With the leader of the socialists in the community, Miguel Ángel Gallardo, in the lead. They criticized that there were 3,000 direct and indirect jobs at stake.
As far as experts are concerned, there is diversity of opinions. The professor in nuclear engineering of the Polytechnic or Catalonia Francisco Calviño is convinced that “Spain must reconsider nuclear closure”. Almaraz I will be the first to close, at the age of 46 in 2027 (he started his operations in 1981), and then the other six reactors will follow him in this order: the second of Almaraz, ASCó I (Tarragonona), Borst (Valencia), Ascó II and Vandellós II (also in Tarragona) and Trillo (Guadalajara), ending in 2035.
According to Calviño, our country has “Very good plants”, which are “perfect” to keep working after their first expiry datethat it is generally nearby 45 years. Remember that there are reactors in the United States with authorization up to 60 and even 80 yearsAnd that regularly gives reviews to guarantee their safety.
To have “Something that already works, in good condition and that is an energy source that does not generate CO₂”Underline and throw: «Well, if you have it, keep it«. Another thing would be to build new centrals, something that does not see feasible in the current Spanish context, especially because “the market is not to make an investment” as needed, a “brutal” payment of billions of euros From euros.
From the nuclear tree from Franco to the moratorium of the PSOE of Felipe González
The panorama was very different when the Spanish central stations were built, planned in the Francoist and usually increased dictatorship between the 70s and 80s (The last to connect were Trillo and Vandellós II in 1988), when the entire energy sector was public
The socialist government Felipe González imposed a moratorium after his arrival at power in 1982The paralyzing of the works that have already been initiated from different reactors, and the Chernobyl -accident in 1986 He strengthened the Antinuclear Gulf in SpainIn line with what happened in other countries such as Italy or Germany. Since then no new power station has been built in our country.
The director defends that the growth of renewable energy sources together with storage will replace the electricity that is currently generated by active reactors: 19.6%of the electric mix in 2024, only behind the wind (22.9%) and for photovoltaic solar – Solar energy (16.7%) (16.7%).
Can renewable energies replace the role of nuclear?
There are also differences between experts. On the one hand, Calviño remembers that Renewable energy sources are “intermittent”that is, The plot does not produce at night and the wind does not work if there is no windthere Storage technologies are neededAnd that «They are not sufficiently developed«.
«It is clear that in 10 or 20 years we are not willing to cover everything with renewable energy sources«. And therefore «Eliminating a source that does not generate CO₂ is a problem because you will have to take yes or yes against natural gas during that period »He exposes.
Discrepa Eloy Sanz, professor of Energy Engineering at Rey Juan Carlos University, who says that the Nuclear generation «can be perfectly replaced by renewable energy sources«.
It is based on the models of the National Energy and Climate Plan (Piniec)“ that places an 81% electrical generation objective of clean energy by 2030At what time four of the seven active reactors are closed, according to the nuclear black -out calendar. To put this number in perspective, the contribution of renewable energy sources in 2024 was 56%.
“It is therefore not true” that the nuclear will usually be replaced by gas” Although he acknowledges that this will have to take a few hours a year, a few hours a year, until this polluting energy. Yes, admit that “The storage problem is real”, y Spain goes behind the objectives of the PNIECBut trust that in the coming years, as they become more necessary, the Investment in batteries.
Electric, reluctant to continue with the nuclear matters
In any case, Sanz recalls, “No company has said:” I want to continue to control the reactors and point “. They always add a Coletilla: “They would need help to do the works they have to do,” says this researcher, expert reviewer of the IPCCThe UN panel for climate change and also deputy director of the environmental policy of the Pedro Sánchez government in 2024.
The owners of Iberdrola and Endesamost important nuclear operators in Spain, They have demonstrated in public for expanding the useful life of the reactorsBut Until now, nobody has formally asked for an extensionAccording to the Ministry of Ecological transition. Neither Almaraz, whose closure is closest.
The central issue is the economic profitability of maintaining these central. The Board of Almaraz -Vrillo Nuclear Central Administrators (CNAT)owner of this infrastructure and composed of Iberdrola, Endesa and Naturgyhas assured that the closure is due to the «Disprink tax burden that suffers ((435 million euros per year),),, That exceeds all its operational costs together«.
They largely refer to the person known ‘Enresa rate’, the contribution that each has to pay centrally for its future dismantling and waste treatmentAnd Last year it increased 30%. It was the case because of the decision to build a warehouse in any central for waste with greater reactivity, and not a centralized basin, as previously increased, which causes an increase in costs.
Taxes, in the center of controversy
He Miteco justifies that the electricity pays for this contribution, since the other would be option that the “20,000 million euros in waste management” will “pay the Spaniards”, According to Aagesen in a recent appearance in the Senate. The “bad called ‘enresa rate’»Es “A patrimonial advantage that must be updated with a view to new needs”” So if the management of nuclear waste “costs more”, that must have an impact on that advantage. “There is no plot”stressed.
“Every company says it pays too much,” says Sanz, who emphasizes that the owners of the power station, at least for the energy crisis that started in 2021, They had a “company in losses”before the rise of the ‘Enresa -tariff. ‘
According to Calviño, companies and the government must “sit” to negotiate. “If the industry wants to continue with the nuclear, and I think it’s a matter of sitting and not talking about the closure of a technology, because we are not talking about the closure of natural gas,” but simply leaves it “to The free decision whether we are interested or not, with very limited exceptions such as nuclear ».
Ask to set aside political and sociological factors –In every country the percentage of the pronuclear and antinuclear population varies greatly, as seen with the differences between Germany and France– and focus on whether it compensates to continue with this energy that only evaluates its economic and technological importance.