Nuclear power
Providing our own energy also means nuclear power, where we have chosen to extend some of our nuclear reactors further into this fourth decade. It was certainly not an easy debate in which we let the national decision on capacity depend on the risk we wished to take, but also on weaknesses in the countries surrounding us.
At the same time, Belgium also managed to win a seat at the table in the evolution of the small modular reactors (SMRs) that are announced for 2045. The belief in new reactors with the old technology has disappeared and cooperation between European member states proved to be a must. The investment was so large that no private player could bear it without government support. Moreover, the trump cards were complementary. Countries like France and The Netherlands developed their political discourse faster, but a country like Belgium was ahead in terms of know-how.
Next to wind, hydrogen, and nuclear power, gas also continued to play an important role, although it has become clear that this is mainly in combination with carbon capture and storage (CCS) and with the ambition to build a pipeline to Norway for CO2 transport. Last, but not least, we have been able to realize most of our ambitions so far by dealing better with demand management. The run-up to it took many years, but now that everyone has a digital meter, we fully realize what potential was hidden in this demand management.
A more engaged government
n recent years, energy has evolved into a security domain. Even today, in 2030, we see that Russia remains a destabilizing factor. From that security dimension, we have moved to a market model with more involved governments. It was necessary to intervene to avoid one market destroying the other. The free market does not work enough in this domain, which is precisely why an evolution was needed towards strong European regulators who look above national interests. Only in this way could we grow towards systems that take the volatility out of the market and ensure controlled profitability.
The 2008 financial crisis had previously taught us that it is not easy to develop unified European policies. During the energy crisis, it gave us the insight that it is better to move forward with those countries that are willing to do so. We could not afford to wait too long, and it made little sense to come up with a European model that would then take ten years to take effect. Moreover, it was interesting to observe how, in parallel, a political system developed that was more economically educated. That opened the door to better integration with the industrial players who were willing to step into energy.
Will the energy transition from the third decade allow us to better protect consumers in the fourth decade? The choices made in the twenties led to the fact that after the given support, energy prices could drop again. Incidentally, these important choices are not just made by the government. Consumers themselves also made important steps and learned to deal with new technology and higher investments. As a government, we were able to encourage energy suppliers to provide better guidance and help develop the financial models so that sustainable solutions became accessible to all. We often say that Belgians are born with a brick in their stomach. Meanwhile, the same reflex for heat pumps is quietly visible. In retrospect, the energy crisis in the first half of the twenties was the right time to bring consumers into the transition while offering them a better market protection.
