I was asked to write a Brief for the USA House of Representatives’ Committee on Foreign Affairs (Europe Subcommittee) 12 March hearing: “Going Nuclear on Rosatom: Ending Global Dependence on Putin’s Nuclear Energy Sector,” submitted via Wilson Center in Washington, where I am a Global Fellow (external). There are two aspects to the Brief:
- My assessment of how threats posed to the 3-Seas-Region Member States executing a pragmatic energy transition incorporating nuclear energy emanate both from the role of Russia’s Rosneft, and equally from the activities of seven anti-nuclear Member States led by Germany, and
- Detailed research on Russia’s nuclear energy dangers contributed by colleagues in Poland and Ukraine. Their research includes:
- Appendix A: Some facts and policy recommendations on Rosatom activities, based on research by Warsaw colleagues at The Polish Economic Institute (PEI), Dr. Adam Juszczak, and Mr. Kamil Lipiński (p. 6);
- Appendix B. Rosatom may be assisting in circumventing sanctions., from research by colleagues at DiXiE Group, Kyiv, Ukraine, especially Mr. Roman Nitsovych, and Ms. Olena Pavlenko (p. 7);
- Appendix C. Why sanction Rosatom: Link between “peaceful” Rosatom energy & Russian nuclear weapons, based on research by CGS Strategy XXI , Kyiv, Ukraine, in particular Mykhailo M. Gonchar, Founder and President, and Chief Editor of the Black Sea Security Journal (p. 11.)
I highly recommend their three Appendices.
I should note that what I wrote in the main body was likely unexpected. I wrote that, for accomplishing a pragmatic, nuclear-power-inclusive energy transition in the 3-Seas Region (i.e., the EU’s Central and Eastern Europe, Baltic, and Balkan Member States), the continued dependencies on Russia’s Rosatom are not the only threats. The threat from the Group of Seven anti-nuclear states, led by Germany, is clearly equally or more disruptive to the Region accomplishing a pragmatic energy security-and-transition policy. I’ll quote a bit of the report on this point:
The 2nd threat to allied-based, pragmatic nuclear renaissance in 3 Seas Region
Before elaboration below on the other three points above, I feel I should bring to the Committee’s attention a closely related issue to that of Rosatom’s malign activity in the EU 3 Seas Region, as seen from the vantage point of my work, which others might not raise. That is:
- There are also several Member states of the EU itself, which actively oppose the continuation or expansion of nuclear power within Europe. This anti-nuclear rhetoric often relies on examples of problems with today’s Russian or older Soviet-legacy reactors to unscientifically claim that these are inescapable problems inherent to nuclear energy generally.
A faction of seven EU Members are opposed to any nuclear energy projects, including Austria, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain, [1] with Germany the central player, greatly handicapping development of a robust, allies-based nuclear sector, one free of dangerous Russian and Chinese participation. This internal-EU opposition greatly hinders Brussels from playing the sort of central organizational, governance, subsidizing-and-financing roles, which it logically should and must play in the EU nuclear sector. These states, and principally the “renewable fundamentalist”[2] and deeply ideologically anti-nuclear German state, continue to block Brussels from establishing:
- A level playing field for nuclear energy alongside renewable wind and solar generation as concerns finance, subsidies and carbon credits, or
- A comprehensive EU-wide governance-and-policy system for its nuclear sector. A lack of this system greatly enables malicious actors, such as Russia and China from growing their nuclear-energy presence within this or that Member state.
The EU adoption of the so-called “Green Taxonomy” in 2022, finally facilitated, somewhat, the development of new nuclear capacity in Europe. However, quite insufficiently. As I wrote at the time:
“Indeed, the downsides of sticking to the “100% renewables and no nuclear” transition orthodoxy are worrisome.
“Consider the results last year, of Germany’s official Eighth Annual Independent Monitors’ Report on the Energiewende.[4] Aside from reporting, that its renewables-only program will miss many targets, as usual, it made the rather stunning finding that it will not be possible to produce sufficient domestic renewable electricity in future to meet domestic demand. It goes on to propose German firms investment in renewables abroad, writing “ … the establishment of transnational projects at the European level should be considered here.” The paper Die Welt explains this to mean that the EU should allow German firms to develop renewables abroad and take the [carbon] credit for these projects back home in order to satisfy Germany’s own national EU-mandated decarbonization responsibilities.[5] Renewable colonialism?” [3]
Note that, the former-president of the European Investment Bank, in a public talk in Frankfurt on February 14, 2024, used the same characterization of these German projects, saying that, in Africa, they ignore the local needs, and are called “colonial”. [1] Similar views, in my experiences, are held by some in Ukraine and 3 Seas.
Indeed, an identical sort of subversion was carried out by Russia to kill fracking for gas in Central and Eastern Europe in the 2010’s and after.[2] Even though Russia and its Gazprom export monopoly were major players in Europe, they sought to eliminate any competition, and found it [useful] to actively support (or initiate) pseudo-“green” and –“environmental” anti-gas-fracking protest groups in especially Central and Eastern Europe.
Germany’s state-funded anti-nuclear institutes (Stiftungen) and NGO’s active in the 3 Seas Region follows a strikingly similar pattern.
What to do about all this?
It is the traditional preference and practice of officials the USA and those EU states that embrace nuclear energy, to avoid ideological and political issues that might inflame relations with and between Members. However, this has left the public and elite discourse sparse, with insufficient informed critiques of both the dangers of continued Russian nuclear activities in Europe, and of the destructive, anti-scientific opposition by several Member states to nuclear power as a pragmatic and legitimate vehicle for energy-security and energy-transition success. As I advised in a study published in September 2021, commissioned by the leading Estonian security think tank, ICDS
“Government will need to actively back the efforts of its own officials, civil society groups, and the expert, academic, and think-tank communities to engage nuclear sceptics of the society in critical, facts-based polemic and thus provide some balance against the renewables-only populism.”
Recommendation:
Besides the obvious need for sanctioning further Rosatom business dealings within Europe and the USA (and if possible, Turkey), those EU Member governments – as well as the USA – having clear ideas on the risk from any continued cooperation or business with Rosatom, must speak up consistently and relentlessly against the continuance of these dependencies and relationships, using reasoned arguments, and supported by facts.
However, in my view, the equally or perhaps more damaging opposition to development of new nuclear power in Europe and especially within the 3 Seas region so in need of it, which, unfortunately, emanates not from the Russian aggressor, but from allied Member states and most especially from Germany, must also be opposed publicly and consistently as well by both Member-states’ and USA government officials and competent civil society institutions. These are co-equal threats that, if allowed to continue, risk turning the difficult victory of Europe over Putin’s energy war, the gas crisis of Winters 2021-22 and 2022-23, into Pyrrhic victories. The prolonged Russian war in Ukraine will put great stress on the economies of 3 Seas states (and on particularly ill-prepared Germany), overcoming which will require pragmatic energy-system restructurings, with nuclear energy at the core.
This is how the Nord Strean 2 pipeline partnership of Moscow and Berlin was treated by realistic, security-conscious Members, especially Poland and most others in the 3 Seas Region, and this opposition grew gradually to be ultimately highly impactful. Such public, civil-society-rallying clarity is sorely lacking on these new-nuclear issues from many Member governments.
[1] Conference: “The Transatlantic Agenda in a Pivotal American Election Year,” Wednesday, February 14, 2024, Alliance Building, Frankfurt, organized by the American German Institute (AGI) of Washington, DC. Quoting Dr. Werner Hoyer, former-EIB President: January 2012-December 31, 2023. https://americangerman.institute/events/2024/02/the-transatlantic-agenda-in-a-pivotal-american-election-year/
[2] “Russia’s Quiet War Against European Fracking: Environmentalists trying to block shale gas exploration across Europe are unknowingly helping Putin maintain his energy leverage over the continent,” Keith Johnson, Foreign Policy, June 20, 2014, https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/20/russias-quiet-war-against-european-fracking/
[1] “Germany, Spain push to keep nuclear out of EU renewable energy goals,” By Kate Abnett, Reuters, March 16, 2023. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-spain-push-keep-nuclear-out-eu-renewable-energy-goals-2023-03-16/
[2] A critical characterization, which I coined, to emphasize the maximalist and inflexible nature of the German energy transitions plan, the Energiewende, adopted in 2011, which mandates 100% renewables and no nuclear power.
[3] “EU Commission openness to nuclear as green, betrays falling confidence in the German 100%-renewables model [English & Polish],” by Thomas O’Donnell, Posted 14Jan2022, website GlobalBarrel.com. https://globalbarrel.com/2022/01/27/eu-commission-openness-to-nuclear-as-green-belays-falling-confidence-in-the-german-100-renewables-model-english-polish/#more-170192 The “renewables colonialism” characterization reflects that the massive “green hydrogen” import projects Germany now insists on from 3 Seas, African and Mideast states, are often described as “colonial” in these regions for ignoring local-states’ energy-security exigencies T.O’D 14Feb24].
The Global Barrel 