Europe asks if reviving nuclear is the answer to energy shocks

jmyeet

Short answer? No: > Nuclear development is a long-term project, not a short-term fix to current energy insecurity. Long answer? Still no. Flamanville [1] took 15 years (1o over estimate) and the cost was five times what was projected. Hinkley Point-C [2] is first projected to come online in 2030 (18 years after commencement) and the costs will at least double. Both are mentioned in the article. The amortized cost of nuclear power makes it among the most expensive forms of electricity generation. And they take forever to build. Not a single nuclear power plants (of the ~700 built in the world) has been built without significant government contributions. And they won't get cheaper. SMR (also mentioned in the article) doesn't make sense. Nuclear plants are better when they're bigger. SMR is just another way of extracting money from the government for dead end research. Europe as a whole has a history of colonialism. This is the basic for European social democracies: offshorting their problems and costs onto the Global South. They've taken the same approach with energy. In the 2010s, Europe outsourced its energy security to Russia and that has had obvious conseequences for Ukraine. This was actually an incredibly rare W for the first Trump administration: in 2018 the administration warned Europe of the dangers of Russian gas and badgered Germany into building an LNG port with the Trump-Juncker agreement [3]. This was both correct and fortuitous after Europe suddenly needed to import a lot of LNG from 2022. Europe also outsources its security to the United States and that's partly why they're in this mess now. Europe is suffering for providing material aid to a war of choice in Iran that they didn't consent to or otherwise want. The article mentions the issue of finding money for defence spending to meet US demands. That's money primarily for US defense contractors. You think that might be an issue? Renewables, particularly wind and solar, are the path forward. As is divorcing itself from being a US vassal state. A lot of Europe's policies come down to the failed austerity policies after 2008. Taxing wealth and barring profit shifting to low-tax jurisdictions is the path forward here, not strangling ever-decreasing social safety nets. Austerity is corporate welfare for banks. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... [3]: https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-lng-europe-after-trump-junc...

jacquesm

No, what they should do instead is decentralize energy generation to the point that we're in cockroach mode. And if that means that transportation of goods gets priority over transportation of people then so be it until we've figured that one out. The sooner we get this over with the better. Install as much solar and wind as we can and get to the point where we have a glut and then back the up with decentralized storage.

firefoxd

Nuclear is the answer to our infinite appetite for energy. For the long term, nuclear will be part of the solution. With that said, there is no such thing as an energy shock right now. Instead, Europe has allies who blatantly attacked a sovereign nation. The answer to that is to condemn and sanction the instigators. What are laws for if they can selectively applied? This is a political problem.

JumpCrisscross

By "Europe asks" the article means someone wrote a white paper [1]. Europe's energy strategy–together with Russian and American military adventurism and Chinese economic nationalism–probably puts it into a recession this year. I have a lot of respect for the aims of the European project. But as currently structured, I see no mechanism by which hard decisions can be made. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...

amarant

I've been saying exactly this since around 09. Glad to see the rest of Europe is finally catching up. Yes we should turn to renewables as much as possible, but we should replace fossil powerplants first, and then nuclear. I'm honestly not sure if 100% renewables is even in the cards for Europe. It's located further north than you probably think [1], which means less sun. Wind is a better fit than solar in the north, but in Sweden we do occasionally get entire weeks with almost no wind, and effectively 0 sun. Hydro is a good alternative for Sweden, and one that is built out extensively.a good thing about hydro is that you can control how much energy it produces to fit demand(ie, produce less energy on windy days). You can't really do that with nuclear. The entire energy situation in the north is super complex. In the winter any energy source will be profitable, as energy prices skyrocket, sometimes as much as SEK 3/kWh. In the summer however you might end up paying to produce, as energy prices go negative. The problem with solar panels and arctic seasons is that you get periods with high energy demand alternating with periods of high energy production. And the periods are way too long to bridge with batteries (~3 months). The extensive solar buildout in Sweden means free energy in the summer, which means a lot of energy production is gonna be a loss leader for around 3-4 months. And then extreme power shortages where you can charge premium prices during 3-4 winter months, with a brief period of sanity and approximate balance in between It's a very weird situation, and we're definitely building a sustainable power grid in "hard mode". On top of that Sweden actually exports energy to Germany, because they decided nuclear power was scary. A nuclear base production would be my first choice, and then balance primarily wind and hydro for the majority of the remainder. Solar panels are kind of wasted in the north, but a godsend in continental Europe. Ideally Sweden would invest German solar fields, or just cut them off from our already strained grid during the winter months(serves them right for shutting down all their nuclear for no reason, fucking idiots) [1] https://youtube.com/shorts/C7-t_Ya6gI4?si=3EnxpFce59-VZb8B

SilverElfin

It was dumb to ever let the nuclear industry and deployment stagnate. That said, I think what Trump is doing, by stacking the NRC with his cronies and quickly approving new reactor designs from companies his friends/family are invested in, is more dangerous than Europe doing nothing.

sam345

All the smart people said fossil fuels bad and renewables were the answer. Now not so much? Nuke is good but why not try lighter regulation, less central planning, and less trying to be smarter than the market and science. Stifling energy innovation and flexibility with central planning is never going to get efficient clean and sufficient energy to support a healthy growing economy that leads to growing standard of living for all.

bryanlarsen

Ontario Canada is planning on spending $400 Billion on a nuclear plant. And that's before the inevitable cost overruns. The government is running ads touting that they're doing it to stay competitive. Having the most expensive energy in the entire world is not the way to be competitive. Especially when next door to Quebec with its cheap hydro power. Maybe Europe will take the "most expensive energy in the world" title away from Ontario. Europe's LNG energy infrastructure is expensive, but new build nuclear is even more expensive.