Nuclear power is necessary to protect European energy supplies from Putin and the weather.
Last week was Midsommar and for once the old adage that it always rains on Midsommar didn’t hold, at least where I celebrated. The weather is not only important for a successful summer celebration but also increasingly for energy, the price of which has been on an upwards trajectory since last Midsommar. As the price of oil has spiked since Russia invaded Ukraine in February European energy bills and petrol costs have increased substantially; which presents both a problem and an opportunity. The problem is obvious, more expensive energy creates issues for both households and businesses and let’s not forget that the largest social movement in the European Union (EU) in the past half-decade is the Gilet Jaune protests in France which were all about fuel prices. The opportunity is that expensive hydrocarbons, i.e. coal, oil, and natural gas, makes renewable energy comparatively cheap and thus the conditions are ripe for the market to drive the transition from fossil fuels to renewables through the magic of price signals.
Price is only half the story though, as the current energy price increases are exacerbated by politics. Leaving morals aside, it’s undoubtedly true that energy would be cheaper in Europe had the EU not imposed sanctions on Russian oil and gas. And energy would be cheaper still had Russia not invaded and created uncertainty. Uncertainty is a key concept when discussing energy I think, as a stable energy supply is more important than a cheap energy supply. Going from imported hydrocarbons to renewables is one way of reducing the risk of having one’s energy supply disrupted by an adversarial state and the risk of a catastrophic climate disaster but it also comes with the risk of unsuitable weather. Coal burns whether or not the sun shines and the wind blows, and just three days ago Germany and Austria announced a temporary restart of coal-fired power as a response to the disruption that the war in Ukraine and the second-order effects of the war has caused.
As much as renewables are the most virtuous energy sources it’s imperative that the great isn’t the enemy of the good. Few experts in the West thought Russia would actually invade in January and yet European energy security is threatened by the realisation of this supposedly low-risk scenario to the point that coal is needed to keep central Europe running. Renewables are great, but just like you can’t always predict the Russians you can’t always predict the weather so in my eyes this past spring has shown once again the need for nuclear power. It has problems and it has in a few instances resulted in very publicised emergencies but it’s weather-agnostic and can produce large amounts of power; precisely what Europe needs. Until large-scale energy storage becomes cheap and practical nuclear power is a necessary stepping stone to a more secure and green future.
I’m willing to be beholden to the weather for Midsommar celebrations, but I’m not willing to risk energy security on something so fickle; we need nuclear as part of the energy mix to protect us from the vagaries of both dictators and the weather.
If you liked this post you can read a previous post about Ukraine possibly becoming an EU candidate here or the rest of my writings here. It'd mean a lot to me if you recommended the blog to a friend or coworker. Come back next Monday for a new post!
I've always been interested in politics, economics, and the interplay between. The blog is a place for me to explore different ideas and concepts relating to economics or politics, be that national or international. The goal for the blog is to make you think; to provide new perspectives.
Written by Karl Johansson
Sources:
Cover photo by Loïc Manegarium from Pexels, edited by Karl Johansson