North Sea Port emphasises the importance of carefully integrating nuclear energy into future-oriented port development

The port authority is calling on the government to take strategic port developments that contribute to economic and social challenges into account when considering locations for nuclear power plants. North Sea Port therefore considers the Mosselbanken and Thermphos sites to be unrealistic.

In its search for locations for nuclear power plants, the Dutch government is also looking at the North Sea Port area and its surroundings. The North Sea Port Authority sees opportunities in the establishment of nuclear power plants but also expresses its concerns about strategic port development. North Sea Port is developing as an economic engine of national and European importance and makes an essential contribution to social challenges such as strategic autonomy, security of supply, the energy transition (including hydrogen and offshore wind), security through military transport, food security and circularity.

The port authority recognises the importance of nuclear energy as part of the energy mix. At the same time, it is crucial that this development is carefully considered, with an eye to the space and conditions necessary for the future growth and strategic role of the seaport.

In its search for locations in the Netherlands, the government has put forward several possible sites in North Sea Port and Zeeland. The port authority considers the Westelijke Mosselbanken and the former, redeveloped Thermphos site (developed under the name Deep-C Circular) to be unrealistic. These sites are currently under development, particularly for circularity and energy transition. A number of companies have already incurred costs for this and have also entered into commitments. For the other locations, EPZ-noord and the Paulinapolder, North Sea Port considers the feasibility to be higher from a port perspective.

In addition to the opportunities we see, as a port authority we have concerns about various aspects of the proposed plans, their impact on North Sea Port, and the sustainable development of the port and industrial cluster. The current plans also entail considerable risks for the future position of our seaport. These have not yet been sufficiently identified.

For example, the plans underestimate the space required for nuclear power plants. Where 50 to 60 hectares are mentioned, practice shows that this is a very optimistic estimate. The long construction time of possibly 12 to 15 years and the associated nuisance also remain underexposed.

The assessment of the locations does not yet take into account the strategic importance of seaport-related sites with deep-sea quays and excellent connections via rail, road, inland waterways and pipelines. These sites are very scarce in North-West Europe and essential for the strategic position of North Sea Port and for the development of industry and maritime logistics. Our unique position as a deep-sea port with strong multimodal hinterland connections must be maintained and further strengthened. 

Although the government is committed to four nuclear power plants, the study is limited to only two locations. This creates uncertainty about future sites. North Sea Port rules out the establishment of four power plants in or around the port. Slow decision-making on the final location choice also jeopardises many of these developments in a crucial (transition) phase.

Finally, North Sea Port argues that the plans for the establishment of nuclear power plants should not hinder the development of other strategic initiatives. These include the expansion of the port as a hydrogen hub on a European scale, the construction of CO2 infrastructure, the 380kV connection in Zeeuws-Vlaanderen, the landing of offshore wind and the host nation programme for military transport. These national and European interests are not yet sufficiently taken into account in the current analysis.