The Chernobyl accident, which is 40 years old, “marked a before and after in awareness” of the risks of nuclear energy. Although the number of new reactors has decreased on a global scale, the current context of wars – with plants in combat zones – and the aging of many facilities continue to pose great risks, according to environmental organizations.
Nuclear accidents not only “remain likely” but “are increasing as the fleet ages,” especially in Europe and the United States. This is stated by Cristina Rois, member of Ecologistas en Acción and assistant to the Transparency and Public Participation Committee of the Nuclear Safety Council, in statements.
Added to this factor is a geopolitical scenario marked by armed conflicts, which has further raised the social perception of nuclear risk. “The plants are not designed to resist intentional attacks,” warns the expert.
He added that the consequences of a nuclear disaster are, to a large extent, foreseeable. An accident like Chernobyl was not necessary to draw lessons: its effects were known in advance, without the need for a catastrophe, Rois explained.
Risks in war zones
For example, in Ukraine, nuclear plants are practically on the front line of the conflict, which significantly increases security risks, according to the representative of Ecologistas en Acción.
Rois adds that concern about the nuclear impact extends to other hotspots with the presence of reactors, such as Iran and also the United Arab Emirates, much closer to the Strait of Hormuz, currently in a context of maximum tension.
On the other hand, the person in charge of the Greenpeace Energy campaign, Francisco del Pozo, has also spoken out about the risks that nuclear energy continues to imply forty years after the Chernobyl accident. “It is evident that the existence of power plants in conflict zones turns conflicts into de facto nuclear wars even without any contestant launching a nuclear weapon itself. Especially since they are used as a bargaining chip between the contenders,” he warned.
The risk context is being seen “every day.” In Iran “there have been missiles that have passed near the Busher plant, which could become a hot spot in the war.” “There is no doubt that power plants are part of armed conflicts,” insisted the head of Greenpeace.
Decrease in electricity production with nuclear technology
In 1986, when the Chernobyl accident occurred, 15% of the world’s electricity was of nuclear origin; Twenty-six years later it had been reduced to 12% and since then it has not stopped dropping internationally, as recalled by the representative of Ecologistas en Acción.
In recent years it has been at 9% and “hardly new reactors are being opened. The situation is not at all comparable to what was happening in the period before the accident,” he added.
That disaster demonstrated that the impact of a nuclear accident can affect populations located thousands of kilometers away, consolidating the perception that it is a high-risk technology for electricity generation. In parallel, the development of renewable energies, which are increasingly competitive, has reinforced the idea that there are safer and more economical alternatives.
Plan to close nuclear plants in Spain
Ecologistas en Acción defends compliance with the plan to close nuclear power plants in Spain and considers that beyond 2035, “no reactor should continue to operate.”
According to Cristina Rois, four of the seven reactors still operational have already exceeded forty years of useful life and reinforces the need to advance in electricity storage and the extension of renewable production.
For its part, Greenpeace highlights that Spanish society has historically shown reluctance towards nuclear energy, although mobilization has decreased with the existence of a closure schedule. Even so, the organization maintains that the future of the energy system involves an “indigenous, renewable, fast, decentralized, flexible and safe” model, characteristics that – it concludes – nuclear energy does not meet.
