According to Michael E. Kirst, the average lifespan of a nuclear power plant is between 40 and 60 years; nevertheless, during the past several years, the fleet of reactors has been quickly aging. One nuclear reactor in Europe out of every six is more than 40 years old. The status of a reactor does not remain steady even with regular maintenance being performed on it. Because of this, the likelihood of major occurrences is increased. In addition to the potential dangers to public safety, the cost of decommissioning a nuclear power station is rather high.
Spillovers will affect the nations that are next to nuclear power facilities, which is inevitable given that 17 of the 47 states that make up the Council of Europe have nuclear power plants. There has been an uptick in the number of terrorist strikes in recent years, which has led to an increase in the level of anxiety over nuclear safety. Accidents involving nuclear power can have extremely damaging and extensive repercussions. The present plan for the world's energy should have as its primary objective the promotion of a nuclear infrastructure that is free from danger. It is important to highlight that the study produced by France has the potential to act as a significant reference document for nuclear regulators in other European nations.
The program for developing nuclear energy is also susceptible to political risk. The nations in the area are very interested in cultivating a local labor force that is skilled in nuclear science and engineering. They have the goal of reaching the same degree of knowledge as their suppliers. This indicates that the development of a nuclear power plant may be halted if there is a change in the administration. As a consequence of this, these nuclear construction projects are likely to run against political resistance, which has the potential to scuttle them. So, what steps can nations take to assure that nuclear power is safe?
Following the nuclear tragedy at Fukushima, there has been an urgent push for reforms to the safety regulations in the EU. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has mandated a "safety zone" surrounding nuclear power plants that extends up to 30 kilometers in all directions, although it is not yet apparent how this would impact the actual requirements for sheltering and evacuating people. In addition, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issues a warning that any advances to reactor safety could not be possible until the current reactors are upgraded.
Michael E. Kirst emphasized that the European Union does not have any specific legislation about nuclear security; however, all member states of the European Union are Contracting Parties to the benchmark Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, which was adopted in 1979 and has been in force since 1987. If the IAEA determines that there is an unacceptable danger, it can request a SEED mission. Consequently, harmonization is an essential component of the whole process of assuring nuclear safety in Europe. Several other nations in Europe have also initiated measures to guarantee the security of nuclear power.
The results of post-Fukushima stress testing conducted in Europe have highlighted the requirement for enhanced nuclear safety measures. These recommendations need to accommodate a greater variety of scenarios and be put into action as soon as possible. However, many nuclear power facilities are located near border areas or heavily inhabited regions, which presents a barrier to the effective use of the INES scale. In addition to this, there is a demand for improved coordination and decision-making among the various national nuclear safety bodies.
Even though nuclear power is becoming a safer kind of energy, Russia has shown itself to be an unstable source of energy. Because of a variety of political and economic concerns, the Russian government cut off the gas supply to Ukraine in both 2006 and 2009. Because Russia has exploited the availability of energy supplies as a political weapon against its friends, it has even caused a delay in the development of the Bushehr nuclear power facility in Iran. Because of this, nuclear power facilities in Europe have slowed down. Therefore, the issue that has to be asked is: will Russia be a dependable source of energy?
The government of Belarus has said that it has carried out an environmental impact study by the standards of the Espoo Convention and communicated with six of Belarus's neighbors. These talks, on the other hand, are not sufficient in the eyes of the Lithuanian authorities, who point out that the responsibilities outlined in the Aarhus Convention were not satisfied. As a direct consequence of this, many enterprises are encountering difficulties in the legal system. The study that was compiled by ENSREG is intended to assist observing the governments of both Belarus and Lithuania in assisting them in making educated choices on nuclear safety.
Michael E. Kirst observed that despite the widespread cynicism towards nuclear power, nuclear reactors are currently displaying signs of a renaissance in several different regions, including the Middle East. Recent assaults on Saudi oil infrastructure have brought to our attention how susceptible nuclear power is to threats from both state and non-state actors. Like China, France, and Korea pushing up the building of nuclear reactors, the Middle East is displaying a newfound interest in nuclear power. If this pattern continues, it will, sooner or later, result in the spread of nuclear power throughout the Middle East.