On March 16, Federal Energy Minister Tinne Van der Straeten announced the extension of two nuclear reactorss in a memo to the government.
Should the ministers have negotiated more to guarantee better purchasing power to households? “I think we are in a weak position”reply Geert Noels. “There is a monopoly. Our energy position depends on Engie’s strategy. We missed an opportunity in 2005 to keep the cards in hand to properly negotiate the interests of the Belgians and this complicates the negotiations that we will have to do at future. Engie specializes more and more in gas-fired power plants and in alternative energies and does not want to prolong nuclear power plants. We will pay for it one way or another “, he says.
We don’t have a lot of leeway. maneuver since we have not created competition in the energy markets
And for good reason, “We are making two energy transitions: one towards alternative energies and the other towards abandoning nuclear power. For any country, making two energy transitions is very difficult since in the next 10 years , all the potential that we are investing in alternative energies will barely be enough to replace the excess emissions that we are doing because of gas plants.
Finally, on the question of the redistribution of the gains generated by the large groups to the population, the economist is very pessimistic: “A nuclear rent can only be paid if there are excess earnings. This is the case here with nuclear power plants. But good luck”he says. “We don’t have much leeway since we haven’t created competition in the energy markets. Either the government will have to step in and nationalize the energy, which is a Pandora’s box, or it will have to negotiate against a giant who holds all the cards…”