Nuclear energy and social debate

(2003)

Nuclear energy being a technology that keeps arousing controversy, in 2004, viWTA decided to commission a study giving an overview of the social debate on nuclear energy in the past. The study was conducted by the SCK•CEN, together with the VUB (MEKO section), and within the framework of the PISA research program.

First of all, the report ‘Nuclear energy and Social debate’ contains the results of an archive and literature study, completed with interviews with a series of key figures. The study gives an overview of the social debate and the decision making in Belgium but within a European context. For the historical analysis, we preferred to distinguish four main periods: ‘the prehistoric period’ (the early decision in favour of a nuclear program for Belgium, 1945-1970), the seventies, the eighties and the period from 1990 until 2003, when a term was set for the nuclear phase-out.

The report attempts to set the social debate and the controversy on nuclear energy within a context of important events or ‘turning points’, such as the Chernobyl disaster and its impact on the Belgian nuclear energy policy. The historical side of the ‘story’ pays attention to the role of interest groups, NGO’s, the authorities, experts and other parties concerned. The report also contains an extensive appendix with syntheses of interviews with people having actively been involved or having played a key role in the debate. Because of the fact that questions about funding of the nuclear industry with public money have been playing an important part in the social debate, there is also an overview of the financing of the ‘Research Centre for Nuclear Energy / Studiecentrum voor Kernenergie’ (SCK•CEN), since its foundation. Although this overview gives a first impression of the ways the industry has been financed, it could not be completed so far with other financial fluxes.

Three parallel ‘axes’ clarify the social debate itself. The first of them is an outline of the evolution of the public perception and the general cultural backdrop: the post-war technological optimism, the ‘faith in progress’, the first report of the ‘Club of Rome’, the appearance of the notion ‘sustainable development’, etc. Equally important, besides the cultural and historical perspective, are the policy options and political decisions. They form the second axis: the political initiatives and actions (such as the agreement in principle on Doel, Tihange, and Zeebrugge as the sites for our nuclear power plants, the discussions afterwards, structural reforms and the nuclear phase-out) and the impact of regulation on the lay-out of the technological choices. At the same time, this reflects the degree of involvement (of interest groups, NGOs and the public at large) in the decision-making. It is striking that, throughout the Belgian nuclear history, apart form a few attempts in the field and on the political platform, there has never been a really structured social debate, in spite of the clear-cut choice in terms of energy options.
The third axis is the social debate itself, that is to say the arguments of the groups involved to explain their position and/or undermine that of their opponents.

Finally, what the study tries to do in the first place is understand the actual situation by drawing lessons from the past and advance ideas to boost the future debate on our energy policy, a debate that will also have to encompass a view on sustainability.