In recent times, the European institutions have been increasingly recognizing, on the one hand, the gravity of the environmental concerns related to energy (in the steps of production, consumption, and waste management and disposal), and, on the other hand, the importance of reducing the energy imports dependence of the majority of the Member countries.
These recognition has led to remarkable legislation efforts, culminated in the enactment of the so-called Third Energy Package, adopted in July 2009, which, while maintaining the classic European Union approach based on liberalization and improvement of competition, also embraced the new points of view of environment, consumer protection and security of supply.
As acknowledged by the EU itself, the most ambitious points of its legislation instruments are those related to the so-called 20-20-20 objectives to meet by 2020: reducing EU greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions by 20% from 1990 levels, raising the shares of EU energy consumption produced from renewable sources to 20%, improving the EU’s energy efficiency by 20%.
The above-listed points are means to achieving a low-carbon energy structured economy for the Internal European Market. From this starting point, through a brief compared analysis between the Italian and German energy factual and legal frameworks, it is possible to outline the main critical points regarding not only the European energy policy goals, but, more broadly, the ties between energy, economics, society, and the environment.
The focus, here, is on the most recent changes affecting the Italian and German nuclear power sectors. For such purpose, after an overview of the countries’ energy backgrounds (indispensable to understand the nuclear developments in the light also of the other energy resources), the likely future scenarios and the possible alternatives to meet the EU goals will be discussed, on the basis of a variety of sources.
Table of Contents
Introduction
EU context and national policies
1. Greenhouse Gases emissions
2. Radiation Hazards
3. Beyond nuclear: similarities in opposite energy policies
Conclusion
Objectives & Research Topics
This work provides a critical comparative analysis of the energy law frameworks and policies in Italy and Germany. It examines how both nations navigate the balance between European environmental objectives, national energy security, and the social pressures associated with their respective nuclear energy policies.
- Comparative analysis of Italian and German energy factual and legal frameworks.
- The impact of EU energy policies and the "20-20-20" objectives on national strategies.
- Diverging national paths regarding nuclear power and the influence of public opinion.
- The strategic role of natural gas and renewable energy in the transition period.
- The influence of national energy infrastructure on supply security and international relations.
Excerpt from the book
2. Radiation Hazards
In 2011, a popular referendum held in the Italian Region of Sardinia showed a widespread rejection to the proposed construction of new nuclear power plants in the island. The Fukushima disaster was the main reason of the refuse, but the German example of the Asse salt mine, in the Lower Saxony Region, can serve as an additional useful instrument to understand the fears of a local community when a decision to build new nuclear plants is made. Nuclear plants, as stated above, produce radioactive wastes, which have to be temporarily stored either near the nuclear facilities or in geologically safe locations: the Asse salt mine was chosen in 1967 as the perfect place to store the German nuclear industry wastes. Yet, approximately ten years later, it was found that the Southern part of the mine – which was the one chosen for the storage – is likely to be involved in infiltration from the aquifers. Water infiltrations in the mine represent a serious danger inasmuch as there is a high likelihood of corrosion of the nuclear wastes drums.
As asserted by the World Health Organization (WHO), “nuclear power stations, waste treatment plants and storage areas all present problems, and it is clear that their seriousness depends to a large extent on the potential risks of the facilities concerned [...] and their planned operating period, particularly for long-term waste storage.”
Thus, although the external costs of producing electricity from nuclear power are estimated to be lower than the methods based on other fuels, such as coal, oil or gas, to the aim of a careful evaluation of the possible benefits and risks involved in the decision to build new nuclear plants, it has at least to be note that:
The results of assessments like these are interesting, but are fraught with methodological problems, for example concerning how to calculate the cost of specific types of damage. Simple economic assessment, based on insurance replacement costs for example, may not provide a realistic measure of, or proxies for, the human value of amenity loss or health damage, much less the ecological alue of any disruption. Even more contentious is the value put on human life [...].
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides the EU regulatory context, specifically the Third Energy Package and the 20-20-20 objectives, while introducing the comparative approach between Italy and Germany.
1. Greenhouse Gases emissions: Discusses the role of nuclear power as a low-carbon energy source versus the environmental risks associated with fossil fuels and nuclear waste management.
2. Radiation Hazards: Examines public skepticism and environmental risks related to nuclear energy, utilizing the Fukushima disaster and the Asse salt mine case as focal points.
3. Beyond nuclear: similarities in opposite energy policies: Explores how both nations, despite different nuclear paths, share a dependency on natural gas and are actively pursuing renewable energy and efficiency targets.
Conclusion: Synthesizes the analysis, highlighting that while Italy and Germany diverge in nuclear strategy, they remain aligned in their commitment to EU goals and their reliance on natural gas during the energy transition.
Keywords
Nuclear Power, Energy Policy, Italy, Germany, European Union, Renewable Energy, Natural Gas, Greenhouse Gases, Energy Transition, Environmental Law, Fukushima, Radiation Hazards, Energy Security, Sustainability, 20-20-20 Objectives
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper provides a comparative legal and policy analysis of how Italy and Germany manage their energy mixes in the context of EU regulations.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Key themes include nuclear energy policy, the shift toward renewables, the security of natural gas supplies, and the role of local communities in energy decision-making.
What is the overarching research goal?
The goal is to analyze the critical points of energy policy in both nations and evaluate their paths toward achieving EU sustainability targets.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The paper utilizes a comparative legal and factual analysis, drawing upon diverse sources including national legislation, EU directives, and energy reports.
What topics are covered in the main body of the text?
The body covers GHG emissions, the comparative analysis of nuclear policies following the Fukushima disaster, and the similarities in energy infrastructure and reliance on gas.
Which keywords best describe this study?
Key terms include Energy Transition, Nuclear Phasing-out, Natural Gas Dependence, EU Energy Policy, and Sustainability.
How did the Fukushima disaster impact the policies discussed?
Fukushima served as a catalyst for Germany to reconfirm its nuclear phase-out strategy and influenced public rejection of new nuclear plants in Italy.
What role does natural gas play for Italy and Germany?
Natural gas is identified as a critical transitional fuel for both countries to maintain energy security while striving to reduce overall carbon emissions.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Roberto Cui (Autor:in), 2013, Nuclear power and energy future. A comparative analysis of Italy and Germany, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/282685
