On 26 April 1986, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine experienced the worst nuclear accident in history. A sudden power surge in reactor 4 caused hydrogen to explode from overheating, leading to a catastrophic release of radioactive material.
The disaster directly killed around 60 people, but thousands more were affected by radioactive contamination. Official reports state that of the 600,000 people exposed, approximately 3,500 have died or will die from related causes. However, some estimates put the death toll as high as half a million. The exact amount of fuel released into the atmosphere remains debated, but the radioactive cloud reached as far as the Pyrenees. At least 300,000 people had to leave their homes, and the exclusion zone is considered uninhabitable for about 40,000 years.
Anti-communist rhetoric often claimed such an accident could only happen in the USSR. The country was in decline, and there were significant failures in both operation and emergency management. However, serious nuclear accidents have also occurred in other blocs, including Three Mile Island in the United States (1979) and Windscale Piles in the United Kingdom (1957), both classified as Category 5 events. In Spain, the accident that led to the closure of Vandellòs I in Catalonia was classified as Level 3 on a 7-point scale.
Fukushima's Impact on Nuclear Safety
The Fukushima disaster in Japan (2011) also reached the maximum category. This occurred in a technologically advanced country known for its emergency management capabilities. While the initial cause was an earthquake and tsunami, a parliamentary investigation concluded that the disaster “was negligence and could have been avoided”. Despite fewer direct casualties than Chernobyl, journalistic reports and series like 'The Days' (Netflix) show how close the world came to an absolute catastrophe, averted only by luck, improvisation, and the sacrifice of some individuals.
Fukushima, like Chernobyl before it, forced a global strengthening of nuclear plant safety. These increased investments make nuclear energy more expensive and less competitive. Meanwhile, Spain has yet to decide on a permanent deep geological repository for nuclear waste, which is planned for 2073. For the preceding 50 years, waste will be stored near each plant after plans for a centralised temporary storage facility were abandoned, further increasing costs.
The Future of Nuclear Power in Europe
Despite these challenges, there is ongoing discussion about a nuclear renaissance in Europe and worldwide. While some countries are investing in new plants, with 60 reactors currently under construction globally, the reality is less promising than some sectors suggest. To decarbonise just 10% of global electricity, these 60 reactors would need to be completed, and another 300 built. Achieving this in the short term seems impossible.
Project delays in Finland (13 years), France (12 years), and the United Kingdom (Hinkley Point C, initially due in 2025, now postponed to 2031, 14 years after construction began) show the impracticality of some projections. There is also talk of small modular reactors (SMRs), mini-nuclear plants, but only a few demonstration units exist in China and Russia, with two more under construction in the United States and Canada. The uncertainties surrounding SMRs, including costs, supply chains, and fuel, far outweigh the certainties.
Given this context, the continued push for nuclear energy raises questions. While accidents are infrequent, their consequences are catastrophic. Managing nuclear waste is a problem for current and future generations, and the escalating costs make it an inefficient energy source. A clear alternative involves renewables, batteries, reversible power plants, and a meshed grid. This approach also includes electrification, efficiency, and a reduction in overall energy demand.
