Nuclear energy in Europe with Manuel Ordóñez
What role should nuclear energy play in Europe’s transition to a cleaner, more secure energy future? As the continent works […]
What role should nuclear energy play in Europe’s transition to a cleaner, more secure energy future? As the continent works […]
What role should nuclear energy play in Europe’s transition to a cleaner, more secure energy future? As the continent works to meet its climate goals while navigating rising energy demands and geopolitical instability, nuclear is once again part of the conversation.
In this episode of the Liberal Europe Podcast, Ricardo Silvestre (Movimento Liberal Social) speaks with Manuel Fernández Ordóñez, Director of the Peter Huber Institute for Energy Research at Universidad de las Hespérides and author on nuclear energy policy. Together, they dive into the potential of nuclear in the energy mix, address safety concerns, and explore new technologies reshaping the sector.
This podcast is produced by the European Liberal Forum in collaboration with Movimento Liberal Social and Fundacja Liberté!, with the financial support of the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum are responsible for the content or for any use that be made of.
This podcast, as well as previous episodes, is available on SoundCloud, Apple Podcast, Stitcher, and Spotify.
You can follow Manuel on LinkedIn and on X/Twitter, and he is a columnist at @TheObjective_es and @libertaddigital.
And you can find his book “Nucleares sí, por favor” (Yes to nuclear, please), here.
Welcome to the Liberal Europe Podcast, I’m your host Ricardo Silvestre, and thank you so much for listening to today’s episode. And for this conversation, I’m very happy to bring you Dr. Manuel Fernandes-Gordonés. Manuel is the director of the Peter Hubbard Institute for Energy Research at Universidad de Las Péridas, and he has a PhD in nuclear physics and an undergrad in particle physics.
He has a book published called Nuclear Yes Please, and he’s also a columnist in Spanish newspapers on the topic. He’s also a resident expert in energy at Fundalib, our friends from Madrid, and ELF-MO. We talk about the potential of having nuclear energy in the energy mix, safety issues, and emerging technologies.
Manuel, thank you so much for coming to the podcast.
Thank you, thank you. It’s a pleasure.
Oh, it’s a pleasure to have you here. We are at the offices of Fundalib in Madrid. Actually, we have some work done with the European Limbo Forum about the promises of nuclear energy.
We also have the examples, which is successful in some places. Other places, there’s too much resistance. So tell us a little bit where we are, in your opinion, on the European Union, regarding the debate of the importance of nuclear energy for the energy mix.
Nuclear energy is vital for the future of European energy. If you take a look at the global scope, nuclear energy is producing around 10% of the world’s electricity. But not all the countries in the world have nuclear power.
If you take a look at the countries that have nuclear power plants, then the electricity production is around 20%. If you go to the list of top 25 countries by GDP, 22 out of the first 25 countries have nuclear power. The other three are Germany, which recently abandoned nuclear energy, which was an enormous mistake that they are paying for now. We can talk a little bit later about that. And the other one is Italy, which abandoned nuclear energy in the 80s. But now they are thinking about coming back to develop a new nuclear program in Italy.
So the most advanced countries in the world support and have nuclear energy, and they are working to increase the share of nuclear energy in their energy systems. Actually, in the last COP28 in the Emirates, all of these countries issued a statement to triple nuclear energy by 2050. Nuclear energy is very important in the world.
Concerning Europe, nuclear energy is around 20% of all European electricity, but it’s around 30% of all the clean electricity. If you take into account all the clean electricity, solar, wind, hydro, biomass (where biomass is not clean, but let’s consider it clean for the discussion), and nuclear, nuclear is almost one-third of the cake.
Nuclear is very important, and this is what the European Commission and the European Parliament said a couple of years ago with the taxonomy, that nuclear is completely vital for the future of energy in Europe. We need to invest in nuclear, because we will not be able to achieve the goals and objectives for climate change, if we don’t use nuclear energy. It’s a fact.
There’s a lot of resistance. I’m going to say here, there are two levels of resistance, and we’ll tackle them separately. One is the political, like we saw in Germany. That was completely absurd, and we’re going to get into that.
The other one has to do with the general population. There are a lot of misconceptions. I am so often confronted with Chernobyl, and I keep saying Chernobyl is not an example that you can use when you think about, for example, Eastern Europe, or Korea, or even the United States, even if there was a nuclear reactor problem in the United States.
Tell us a little bit from your vantage point. Where are the biggest misconceptions in the public debate?
Well, the point is that if you take a look at the history of nuclear energy, you will see that it was developed since the 50s, especially in the 70s, 80s. This was where the bulk of nuclear power plants were built in Europe.
So the point is that nuclear energy, is a complex matter, it’s complex science, complex engineering, so it’s not easy to explain to the public the minor aspects and the insights of nuclear energy. As a complex matter, it’s very difficult to elaborate narratives against nuclear power, because almost nobody understands it.
That’s a great point. I see that in Portugal, by the way.
For example, you can take whatever technology you want, but the reality is that when a technology is complex, it’s very easy to build narratives that are not true, the people will buy it, the people will believe it.
In addition, the nuclear sector, historically, didn’t want to fight this battle. They always took a quiet profile and low profile. They didn’t want to talk to the public, because actually, they didn’t think this was important. They thought that public opinion had nothing to say about the energy policy in general. That’s why they lost the battle. They lost the battle because they didn’t appear. These past decades, since the 60s, especially the 70s, all the narratives against nuclear energy were the only narratives in the arena.
There were no pro-nuclear narratives at all. After 30, 40, and 50 years of anti-nuclear narratives, I can understand why society is anti-nuclear. Of course they are! But the point is that this is changing, at a certain point with the beginning of a new century, and especially in the last 10, 15 years, the nuclear industry understood that public opinion is key. We need to appear in the battle and build a narrative, the current narrative. We need to put the facts on the table.
We need to show the figures and the numbers, explain to people that, without nuclear, we cannot go any longer. Without it, we won’t achieve any sustainability goals, any climate goals. Of course, you have 50 years of resistance there, but this is not the same in every country.
It depends on the country. For example, in Spain, you have a really strong anti-nuclear movement, but you don’t have this kind of movement, for example, in Finland. In Finland, even the Green Party is pro-nuclear. Or take countries that are doing a 180-degree turn in policy.
For example, Sweden. Sweden was about to close all the nuclear power plants, but now they are going to build more nuclear power plants with the changing government. Same in Belgium, same in Holland, same in all the Eastern countries.
It’s not the same in every country. And it’s also not directly related to the color of the government. Because you have, as I mentioned, Green Parties in Finland that are pro-nuclear.
You have the Socialist Party in France, which is not against nuclear. It’s not very pro, but it’s not against. You have other socialist countries that are not against nuclear.
And then you have Spain, which is really, really against nuclear. Or you have Austria, or you have Germany, they are really against, or even Luxembourg. So, you cannot find a direct correlation between the color of the government and the position on nuclear.
But, as a summary, we get that the majority of people are anti-nuclear. This is changing. And the latest polls in Europe show us that the support for nuclear energy is increasing.
Even in Germany, right before shutting down the last three nuclear power plants, the majority of the population was against shutting down those nuclear power plants. So, things are changing, fortunately.
Then there is also a question of geopolitics regarding energy coming from Russia. Then, all of a sudden, they have to cut that down. And now they are running against time.
Now, let me stay in this, because this is important. Actually, I was in Brussels last week, and this was brought up on numerous occasions. Which is Fukushima, naturally, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island.
But I always use the analogy of the planes that don’t crash. Which is, there is a plane that crashes, and then there are 100,000 planes in the air, flying correctly and with maximum safety. I also think that we have to break the idea that “it’s a danger to happen at any moment”. Any moment, there’s going to be a nuclear reactor explosion somewhere in Europe. That is not true. We’ve been using nuclear reactors.
Actually, you mentioned France. Of course, it isn’t 100% safe. But what is? A plane can fall at any time. But tell us a little bit, how can we break this spell? And a TV series like Chernobyl was just so well done. But on the other hand, it’s increasing that irrational fear, which is a nuclear power plant in Spain, or in Portugal, or in France, is going to explode tomorrow. Please get a little bit into security issues.
Yeah, the first thing we have to mention here is that nuclear energy is the safest way to produce electricity. You need to go to the data, and if you take the time to go to the data, and if you are willing to know the truth, then you will realize that nuclear is the safest way. It’s safer than solar, it’s safer than wind, it’s safer than anything.
Second thing. Nuclear energy is a mature technology. We have experience of almost 20,000 years. This means that imagine that you only have one reactor in the world. We have been operating this for 20,000 years. And this is the combination of all the years of operation of all the reactors in the world. There are hundreds of reactors in the world, it’s a really mature technology.
In the past, we have had three main nuclear accidents. First one, in 79, you mentioned, Three Mile Island. Not a single casualty, zero casualties. Then we have Chernobyl. I will talk a little bit later about that.
And, Fukushima, 2011. The biggest nuclear accident in the world. Four nuclear reactors were involved in the accident at the same time. No casualties, no casualties at all. And then we have Chernobyl.
Chernobyl was in 86 and there were several casualties. But, take a look at the reality of the accident. The reactor was designed incorrectly. Such a reactor would never be operating in a Western country. It was bad design. And the people knew it was bad design. They were trying to do safety tests, ironically, with people who were not trained for that. They didn’t have the skills or the information. But, they have the ambition.
Most importantly, they were involved in an ecosystem where you could not question the decisions of people above you. There was no safety authority, there was no institution to report to if something was wrong. And everybody knew that there were many things wrong with that reactor. Chernobyl was a consequence of the characteristics of the Soviet regime. The Chernobyl accident is not an argument against nuclear, it’s an argument against communism.
Manuel, for all the resistance building that TV show has, again, by showing all the failures that you just mentioned, there is a very powerful message by the end. Because when Legasov is testifying and is asked, well, why has this happened here, when it doesn’t happen somewhere else? He immediately said, ‘because our friends in the West do things correctly. They don’t have graphite tips on the nuclear reactor. They have containers. We just do it cheaper. And therefore, problems will happen.’ And I remember hearing that sentence in particular, and there it was… the argument why nuclear energy is safe in the Western part of Europe. And it wouldn’t happen, that kind of mistake. And exactly as you said, because we have more regulations. We are safer. We have more layers of decision-making. So again, that is a discussion that will keep on going.
Yes, at the end, the Chernobyl accident was a mixture of many small mistakes in the chain. But beyond that, they had a huge problem with the controls in the reactor. They knew this problem because they had a similar problem four years before in the Ignalina reactor. They hid this issue, and after the accident, they went to the International Atomic Agency in Austria, and they lied. They lied to everyone.
This was the Soviet style.
I want to go into innovation. Where are we going? In particular, when we start thinking about more streamlining, not only of nuclear energy, but also of nuclear capability. For example, there’s a lot of conversation about small nuclear reactors. Let’s talk about where you see nuclear energy going in the next 10, 15 years. Because again, there is that pressure of trying to decarbonize our society. And we have the goals for 2050. So what’s up on the pipeline, Manuel? What’s coming up?
Yeah, first, it is really important to understand that we don’t confuse the ends with the means. Okay, so the end is to reduce emissions. The end is not to install renewables. This is not the end. Renewables are a tool.
Nuclear energy is another tool. The electrification of vehicles is another tool. The electrification of industrial production is another tool. We have many tools, and we have to use all of them. So in this scope, nuclear energy will be vital, as I mentioned at the beginning.
What we need in Europe is, first of all, to extend the operational life of the existing nuclear power plants. So we have conventional, commercial nuclear power plants. Many of them are of American design. And in the United States, almost all the nuclear power plants have a license to operate for 60 years. And several of them have already been licensed to operate for 80 years. So, first is the life extension. Because we already have like 100 nuclear reactors operating in Europe. If we can keep them operating, we have 20% of electricity already clean.
Second, we need to build new nuclear power plants. Now the debate is if we are going to build large nuclear power plants, like the ones we have now, one gigawatt or even more. Or are we going to install small reactors? In my opinion, this is a market decision, it’s not a government decision.
And, yes, we will need a lot of electricity for the electrical systems, but we will also need a lot of heating sources and hydrogen production and water desalination, and other uses that can be achieved using nuclear energy. This is why the size of the recators should be a market decision. With small modular reactors, the capital cost will be much lower than large reactors, opening new possibilities.
Because now the entry barrier to nuclear energy will be lower, allowing private companies to install small nuclear reactors for industrial uses. The ones with a lot of energy needs for industry. For example, the paper industry, the steel industry, mining companies, and the cement industry. So all of these industries can have much lower entry barriers to install small nuclear reactors.
This will be a game changer. And from the political point of view, we need to support these new opportunities and work on regulation. We need to work on policy support. And the nuclear industry must decide on a handful of reactor designs. Because now, concerning small modular reactors, we have more than 70 designs.
We will not achieve mass production in factories if we are spreading our attention over 70 different designs. We will need to choose two, three, or four designs to focus on, and then reduce the cost dramatically. This will be the future of nuclear, in my opinion.
It’s a fascinating point, going from the macro, which is the typical nuclear power plants that we see, and then the micro that you’re mentioning. For example, we can have a big company that needs a lot of energy, and they can develop their own nuclear capability. And then maybe a smaller company could be like, oh, we want to get into that, because you guys are making a lot of profit, just by not having to buy energy, and generating it.
One last question, I really have to ask you this, how micro can we get? How possible is it, for example, for a city to have a nuclear reactor?
I mean, we can go really micro. Because…
But should we?
Well, it depends on the uses. For example, imagine that you are on a small island with 100,000 inhabitants, and you need a lot of water desalination. You can have a micro reactor, for example, around 10 megawatts. There are several designs of 5, 6, 7, 10, and 15 megawatts. It’s a really small reactor; you can load it in a truck, you install the reactor, and you don’t need operation. It’s like a battery. It operates for 8, 10 years without refueling, and after 10 years, the company comes and replaces the reactor.
So, you don’t have a residue issue, you don’t have operation issues, you don’t have safety issues, you just have power, a battery operating at 10 megawatts 24/7 for 8 years. And this is opening, you know, this will be a game changer. I have been in many international meetings concerning nuclear energy, and I was in Brussels a few months ago talking about SMRs and the European Commission was involved in the conversation, and it was the first time in my life that in the meeting, there were private companies, steel companies, paper companies, mining companies, first time in my life. So, this will be a game changer.
Very good, it’s a brave new world, and I’m so happy that I have you on the podcast.
You laid it out very clearly for me and our listeners to continue to follow this work very closely. I’ve been talking with Manuel Fernandez-Ordonez. Manuel, this was fascinating. Thank you so much, and I will have you on the podcast again so that we can go into even more details on this really fascinating field you work on.
Anytime, it was a pleasure.
Post Credit
Manuel, you were saying that you lived in Madrid for many years, but you’re actually from the north of the country. So, what was the path that you took to get to the point that we’re now talking?
Okay, so I went to college, I studied physics.
Brave man.
I don’t know if I would do that again. So, I graduated in theoretical physics, particle physics, and then I did my PhD in nuclear physics, part of the time in Germany, part of the time in Spain. Then I started to work for a research center in Spain, in nuclear physics. So, I was there for around five years, and then I jumped into the private industry. I’ve been in the private industry for 15 years now, in the energy industry, and especially in nuclear energy.
Where did that interest come from? As a young kid, were you already fascinated by physics?
Yeah, in high school, I was already reading a lot of science books and so on. So, I guess I always had an interest in science. Not specifically in physics, but in science, generally, chemistry, biology, and so on. But I also always felt something about astrophysics and the cosmos. So, finally, I decided to study physics.
I think we’re going to change the topic of our podcast, and we’re just going to talk about astrophysics for the rest of it.
So, still on that, then you did that, and now you’re more connected to not only the academic part, but also helping Fundalib do some policy recommendations. For you, that’s a very comfortable position, or would you like to explore a little more the questions of, you know, policy, politics, or you’re just a pure academic?
No, it’s not pure academic at all. I’m also quite interested in politics. The way we work in Fundalib is that we try to spread the word of liberty, of course, and also try to point out all the things that we are doing not very well in Europe. Energy is one of the topics. Of course, there are many more, but this is what we try to do here.