On April 18th of this year, Bart de Wever, the leader of the political opposition party the New-Flemish Alliance claimed on Twitter that ‘banning nuclear energy is the stupidest thing a country can do’. The tweet lacks context but contains accurate numbers. It appears this claim is mostly true.
Bart De Wever tweeted a screenshot of a tweet made by Eurogrid Carbon Intensity with the caption ‘Germany now emits 12 times more CO2 per unit of electricity generated than France. Banning nuclear power is the stupidest thing a country can do, yet even here it is still enshrined in law.’ The tweet De Wever screenshotted contains numbers originally collected and posted by Electricity Maps, a Danish start-up company. They retrieve raw data from various local and public sources where it’s possible to check if the data is trustworthy and of high quality. They work with an open-source system, which means anyone is free to contribute within the guidelines provided by Electricity Maps. The collected data is internally reviewed by data scientists before posting. They believe that centralizing data about granular carbon emissions empowers companies and individuals to strive for a decarbonized electricity system. Anyone can use their data, and that’s what twitter account Eurogrid Carbon Intensity does. The account is managed by a 32-year-old analytics engineer from France. The gist of his twitter page is comparing the carbon emissions of two countries by using data from Electricity Maps. He accompanies the numbers by a colour that’s either red, orange, or green and the ways the energy is generated in percentages. The percentages rarely combine to 100%. Further research made clear that he works at Electricity Maps as a data engineer, but the twitter account is out of its own accord. After several attempts, no contact could be made. Therefore, it is not clear what the colour codes mean or what their intentions are.
Pro nuclear
Bart De Wever tweeted that banning nuclear energy is the stupidest thing a country can do. Referring to Belgium, that is currently in the process of disabling most of its nuclear power plants. The tweet compares the carbon emissions of France and Germany on the 17th of April 2023 at eleven o’clock in the evening (Berlin’s time). At that moment Germany emitted 605g CO2/kWh using 40% coal, 23% wind and 16% gas. France on the other hand emitted significantly less CO2, 50g/kWh. They use 66% nuclear, 12% wind and 12% hydro. This makes it seem like banning nuclear energy is the stupidest thing a country can do because it makes your carbon emissions skyrocket. However, there is more to it.
According to Joannes Laveyne, researcher at the laboratory of electrical energy technology at the University of Ghent, nuclear power plants that are safe and profitable should not be necessarily closed from a climate point of view. “When it comes to CO2 emission, nuclear energy is one of the cleanest resources but finding people to operate and maintain nuclear plants is proving to be a more difficult issue. That is what’s happening in Belgium.”
Nuclear vs renewable
Germany is strongly committed to renewable energy but today that is only providing them with 40% – 50% of the necessary energy. Their nuclear exit was compensated by keeping the coal and lignite (brown coal) power stations open for a longer period. “The amount and kind of powerplants that supply the country of energy depend heavily on the energy demand, which varies from hour to hour. If there is little renewable energy yield, that means little sun or wind, the coal-fired power plants must run to keep up with the demand,” Laveyne explains. When that happens Germany’s carbon emission increases. “In order to be able to use the lignite they have to deforest primeval forests, and because of that you emit even more CO2”, says Josephine Carlé, expert in environmental and prevention management. She works as a project engineer sustainability and environment for Vinçotte, a Belgium based company that offers objective and advisory services in the field of inspection, certification, conformity assessment and training. They strive for a safe, efficient, and sustainable society.
France has been a fan of nuclear energy for a long time now. Researcher Joannes Laveyne thinks comparing France to Germany unfair. “We must look at where they’ll be in 10 years. France will have low emission rates but so will Germany and they will have achieved it by using renewable energy.” Josephine Carlé thinks France will have difficulties with their nuclear power plants in the future. “There already are a lot of cracks in their nuclear reactors, that will cost them a lot of money to fix. In my opinion, they will have to find other ways to generate energy. You cannot focus on nuclear energy forever.”
Missing context
The numbers retweeted by De Wever reinforce the point that Belgium shouldn’t have banned nuclear energy. A point that N-VA has been highlighting, considering the upcoming elections. They claim that the nuclear exit is a bad idea because nuclear power plants provide stable energy with virtually no direct CO2 emissions. When asked if there is context missing in De Wever’s tweet, both Joannes Laveyne and Josephine Carlé feel like it does. “You must mention that Germany is working hard for a future where energy will be renewable,” Carlé explains.
The spokesman of the party, Phillipe Kerkaert, feels like the tweet provides enough context. “The screenshot clearly shows the time and date. So, the context is not left out. The point of the tweet is that Germany has a much more CO2 intensive power generation than France. This is the case structurally, not just at specific moments. That is due to the choices that both countries have made in the field of nuclear energy. It seems like a perfectly legitimate point to make.”
In conclusion
In short, the claim is mostly true. The numbers in the tweet are correct and trustworthy. However, Bart De Wever’s caption lacks context. Including the fact that Germany is using coal-fired power plants because of their nuclear exit. An exit they made to trade nuclear power for renewable energy. It’s this context that the interviewed experts find necessary to interpret the numbers correctly. Today the claim is mostly true, but in 10 years this might be different.
RESEARCH〡ARTICLE – Lise Smet and Lowie Vandyck, Artevelde University of Applied Sciences, Belgium
Leave your comments, thoughts and suggestions in the box below. Take note: your response is moderated.
