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.
Get decentralized to the point that no single point of failure will result in wholesale outages: resilient as cockroaches. You can't do that if you have interconnects that have to work for society to work. The centralized electrical grid was a great idea and it got us very far. But it is just too fragile. Much better if you can have many (millions) of points of generation, storage and consumption and a far more opportunistic level of interconnect.
> decentralized to the point that no single point of failure will result in wholesale outages
This is a good goal. But it needs to be more rigorously defined. Autarky can be done. But then you need to accept North Korean living standards.
> Much better if you can have many (millions) of points of generation, storage and consumption and a far more opportunistic level of interconnect
Again, to a degree. You can't decentrally power a modern city. So that means either no more cities, which is expensive, or ruinously-expensive power in cities, which again, in practice, means de-industrialisation.
> This is a good goal. But it needs to be more rigorously defined. Autarky can be done. But then you need to accept North Korean living standards.
I'm not sure that's a diss you think it is. They still live better than most societies did at the beginning of the 20th century.
And their current standard of living would also be lifted if not for economic sanctions. The reality is that North Korea is generally a very resource poor geographic location, which ultimately limits your development without trade.
> But then you need to accept North Korean living standards.
I'm not sure that's true.
> Again, to a degree. You can't decentrally power a modern city.
I'm not sure that that is true either, but it will take a lot more work than to do this for less densely populated areas. In general I'm not sure if 'modern cities' are long term sustainable.
To be clear, I'm not either. But decentralisation requires sacrificing economies of scale. And total autarky is a proven failure. Between that and complete integration is probably a more-independent equilibrium for Europe. But it will require paying a price.
> In general I'm not sure if 'modern cities' are long term sustainable
Sure. Maybe. Until then, the economies that field them will call the shots. (Based on everything I've read, cities are far more sustainable than dispersed living.)
I don't doubt that it requires paying a price. The only relevant question is whether that price is substantially lower or substantially higher than continuing on our current track. I'm open to be convinced that it is higher but I strongly believe that it is lower because with increased fragility you're playing the dice and one day they'll come up in a way that hurts you. The more people there will be in those baskets that harder it will hurt.
As for the future of cities: the internet has given us one thing: independence from having to go to cities to work. Combine that with the ridiculous energy expense on commuting and it seems like a complete no-brainer that we should just stop doing that. COVID has already shown us that this is far more possible than we ever thought it was.
> It's higher than prevailing prices. And it gets higher the more autarkic and decentralised the system needs to be.
I don't actually think that that is true. If I look at the cost / KWh + the network costs + various subsidies you can probably supply a house for a lifetime if you the energy consumption costs for that same lifetime and spent them up front on decentralized generation + storage.
It's all about the density, not so much about the cost and as the density goes up so do the complications and the costs. But if you have enough ground (which really isn't all that much) it is perfectly doable today, and probably you'll be in the black in a surprisingly low number of years. The higher the cost of oil the higher the cost of gas, and the higher the cost of gas the higher the cost per KWh (this may vary depending on where you live).
> How much extra are your citizens willing to pay every year to reduce supply disruptions?
That's a very good question. Probably not much until it starts to happen regularly, so I would expect that problem to solve itself over time. Energy has been a hot topic for the last decade and with every price shock it is getting easier to convince people that if they had more autonomy they would be less affected. Solar + heatpumps have exploded in Europe in the last decade and that trend has not stopped, in spite of a reduction in net metering. Ironically, the biggest stumbling blocks are the governments that want to tax energy but see no way of doing this if it is generated and consumed on the spot.
With centralized electrical generation, you get massive economies of scale. It would be very costly to duplicate generation when you can extend lines from a current grid so cheaply. The efficiency of large power plants also results in a reduced carbon footprint. Duplication would be paying much more for a decentralized grids, while producing less electricity from inputs at higher cost.
That very much depends on where in Canada you are! Canada is huge, and parts of it are further north than even Northern Sweden! But from what I understand most Canadians live in the southern end of the country, which is comparable to Germany. Stockholm is at ~60N for your reference
Oh come off it. I'm North of Paris right now (and South of Sweden) and it is absolutely nothing Like Northern Ontario, which has a 3 month growth season and winter temperatures go below -40 on some days. Paris is smack in the sweet spot for the Atlantic conveyor.
If you want to become self sufficient in electricity, the number of sun hours matters more than anything else.
Low temperatures just means you need more insulation, and possibly geothermal of it gets too cold for a regular heatpump.But try to generate enough power with a solar panel when you get 3 consecutive months of almost no sun at all!
The temperature isn't even the issue, the darkness is.
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.
By mechanism and structure are you basically saying they’re too slow and bureaucratic to act in time to avoid a recession? Or that there is literally no way for them to revive nuclear for some reason?
> they’re too slow and bureaucratic to act in time to avoid a recession?
"The energy imports dependency rate in the EU was 57%, which means that nearly 60% of the EU’s energy needs were met by net imports" [1]. To put that in perspective, Sri Lanka–an island nation–has an import dependency ratio of 60% [2].
A European recession is coming because Europe made wrong decisions in the past. I don't know if there is anything it can do in the short term to fix this. Just, potentially, alleviate the pain.
> there is literally no way for them to revive nuclear for some reason?
Nuclear's problem in the West is we overregulate it. I'm not seeing a clear way for the EU to fix this problem, barring France striking a deal in exchange for extending its nuclear-weapons umbrella.
For nuclear, the EU's veto rules mean between Germany's greens and Hungary's Russophilia, nothing transformative can get done.
Because those decisions are made at the country level.
People keep speaking of the EU as if it had the authority of a country. It does not. While it was empowered by the members states to regulate certain things, a lot of things come down to each individual country. Pointing at the EU is a way to launder the failures of each country.
For instance, while there are regulations on emission reduction and percentage of renewables, how those are achieved is on each country. It was not the EU that made Germany retarded with nuclear. If anything, the EU regulation on emissions reduction and renewables make the countries here slightly less dependant on oil and gas.
For the EU to make the "hard decisions" that would allow it to be relevant in the global stage, it would need to federalize. Become a de-facto country.
To restart a nuclear power plant, you must go through every planned maintenance activity that was cancelled or not done in the mothballed time frame, you have to inspect every pipe, every pump, every valve, test every breaker, snubber, and emergency diesel until every single device is satisfactory. On top of that cyber security regulations rolled out between 2003-2018 world wide for nuclear you would also have to do a mountain of paperwork to either confirm with NEI 08-09, the EPRI TAM or equivalent. You will likely have to upgrade your digital infrastructure entirely to get to that point as well.
You would also have to hire in seasoned employees in operations, maintenance, chemistry, health physics, engineering, licensing, procurement, and security.
Going from a barebones security staff guarding a long term storage yard to one protecting a full nuclear power plant would also take time.
It would be 3 to 5 years to accomplish everything if money was not an issue.
All of this spend is on top of no electrical generation. And what parts were sold to other plants that now need replacements.
So every industry that supports those parts and manufacturing would also have to spin up more resources. Economically there would be positive effects.
The reason the American plants are restarting is a lot of private capital, a lot of government money and a willing regulator. 2 billion usd is a steal compared to 25 to build a new one.
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.
Asking for sources is lazy JAQ rebuttal. The numbers are readily available and trivial to Google, easily falsifiable. If I'm lying you can post a rebuttal and score your Internet points that way.
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.
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.
> Nuclear is the answer to our infinite appetite for energy
Approximately 100% of the energy in our solar system radiates from the Sun. Long term, solar is the answer. Nuclear is a really good carrier. In the medium term, we need more energy. Preferably cheap. Ideally clean. Going all in on one mode doesn't make sense because it virtually demand the creation of bottlenecks and single points of failure.
What do we do if another asteroid strikes, raises dust plumes and causes volcanic activity for years? The solution is to diversify renewable energy sources.
Nuclear takes to long to plan and build. If that is fixed, then great.
> solution is to diversify renewable energy sources
There are two economically-viable renewable sources: solar and wind. Everything else is, to put it succinctly, bullshit.
We're not producing and deploying as much solar and wind as we can. But global production has limits. Going all in on just those two (together with batteries) requires massively overpaying. That, in turn, makes the economy uncompetitive.
> Nuclear takes to long to plan and build. If that is fixed, then great
Permitting takes forever, too. Nuclear can be done quicker and cheaper, we've seen China do that. It's a good part of the mix because we just need to add power, and ideally, with economies of scale.
Europe should absolutely develop it. But it's no panacea.
Optimistically, "around 43 GW of enhanced geothermal capacity in the European Union could be developed at costs below 100 €/MWh" [1]. That's 3% of European energy demand [2].
In the case we have dust for years that significantly reduces solar output, most people die. What powers our electric grid doesn’t matter if agriculture is crippled.
In context it seems clear they intended to short hand the possible effects of possible global dust clouds that are possibly aloft for some time with the term "nuclear winter", itself a name for a possible effect of some number of large ground level nuclear blasts.
Surely it'd be a nuclear winter if the same number hit not-cities.
eg: Castle Bravo .. not a city, but a ground level strike.
> It's unclear how this is related.
From a geophysics PoV meteorite strikes are not unlike ground level nuclear explosions in so far as dust plumes go.
> another asteroid strikes, raises dust plumes and causes volcanic activity for years?
At least that's my recollection from those old old first approximation nuclear winter papers that were largely circles and arrows on the back of envelope guesstimations.
If we're to quibble, I'd be asking about the meteorite strikes causing volcanic activity (or is it the dust plumes that cause that activity?) .. cause that seems tenuous unless it's a direct strike on an unstable part of the Ring of Fire / Yellowstone Caldera.
Whether it's nuclear or meteorites the theory rests not so much on number of ground events as it does on volume (and type) or particles raised up high ... the Iridium K-Pg anomaly layer is global yet postulated to have come from a single (large) strike.
Because cities have more concentrated flammable material than random locations on the earth surface, and will typically be the targets in a nuclear war, and is why most calculations are done with strikes against cities.
The nuclear strikes would create columns of burning material that stretch into the atmosphere.
I responded to a comment using a concept "nuclear winter", in a way not widely used.
It was interesting, because I assumed to commenter meant that "humanity powers through with nuclear power during the long winter", compared to nuclear winter as in "humanity attacks itself because of greed and stupidity", as it is commonly used.
You then interpreted it in the common way, but explaining it using meteor strike dust plumes, which is not how nuclear winter is commonly explained, as the mode is typically burning stacks of flammable material("guesstimated" first by Carl Sagan and his peers). It's been a long time since I researched the very plausible nuclear winter(stockpile in Switzerland is my plan).
Yes, it is also likely that strategic oil fields will be set ablaze by nuclear strikes, another dimension to the nightmare.
I don't know how valid this theory is, it seems plausible. It was just an interesting scenario, with nuclear powering us through a catastrophe, man made or otherwise, and with current leadership the best we can hope for.
Sweden, my native country, had a similar idea(offensive nuclear capabilities combined with SMRs) in the 50s and 60s, but was eventually(probably for good reasons) cancelled and dismantled it's nuclear weapons program and eventually closed it's first and only SMR in operation, Ågestaverket, eventually building a capable but conventional nuclear industry that provided cheap electricity to the country for decades.
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)
> we should turn to renewables as much as possible, but we should replace fossil powerplants first, and then nuclear
Europe needs to be adding power sources. Anyone talking about replacement right now or in the next few years is counterproductively misreading the political situation.
Aye, that was the argument back when replacement was on the table. Now we need to build, and we need to build everything. All the wind, solar, and nuclear we can afford to build. I'd leave coal as a last resort, and oil is absolutely counter productive. We should probably avoid LNG plants too, with the possible exception of Norway.
Replacement was always a fantasy.
The nuclear power plants that were operational should never have been shut down.
This was a disastrous policy and was absolutely clear at the time.
> 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.
Although I'm not a huge proponent of nuclear power over renewables, I'm not sure the overruns in those projects are a good argument. These projects become hard to cost and understand up front because so few are built. If the UK built 10 then the costs would come down and the knowledge and experience would grow.
Cost overruns are a great argument even if you ignore the massive time overruns, which you can't. All those cost overruns factor into the electricty price forever. Flamanville has a 60 year lifespan for this reason and even then has an estimated cost of €138/MWh [1]. Compare that to Cestas at €108/MWh [2].
Go further south and Spain has recently been paying €25/MWh [3].
> Compare it to Swedish electricity prices in the winter which are around SEK 3/kWh, or roughly €300/MWh.
The averge electricity price in SE3 this winter, which had nuclear outages, was €100-110/MWh.
New built nuclear power requires €170-230/MWh for 40 years after the completion. Adding on taxes, VAT etc. means that to power the average Swedish home with new built nuclear power the average monthly bill needs to be €540. That is summer as winter.
Using extremely CAPEX heavy nuclear power to fix problems existing a few percent of the year is economic lunacy.
Where are you getting those numbers? I can't find a single source that quotes levelized cost of new nuclear above €150/MWH for newly constructed nuclear?
Below €100/MWh is pure fantasy. The proposed subsidy scheme for the French EPR2 fleet is a €100/MWh CFD for 40 years and interest free loans. Summing up to ~€200/MWh in total.
Your source provided several numbers for nuclear. One is $34/MWH, which is a average cost of existing plants, another number is $169/MWH a number they describe as "Represents illustrative LCOE values for Vogtle nuclear plant’s units 3 and 4"
Your source doesn't even support your statement!
As for Hinckley, I have 2 objections. A you have cherry picked the least cost effective reactor in the world, and are trying to pass it off as typical, and B, it's levelized cost of energy is £128/MWh which translates to €146.
Since we're apparently in the business of cherry picking, I chose Olkiluoto, with a levelized cost of €30/MWH.
Unfortunately the anti-nuclear crowd in Europe has a very loose relationship with reality, but I think it's only prudent we stick to actual numbers here on HN.
Relevant excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
For example, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), based on undisclosed portfolio of projects, estimated nuclear power LCOE at €190-375/MWh which is up to 900% higher than the published LCOE of €30/MWh for an actual existing Olkiluoto nuclear power plant, even after accounting for construction delays in OL3 block, although this number is based on an average LCOE with new and old reactors.
My data might be old, but at least it isn't made up!
Did you even read the footnote of the number you linked?
> The analysis is based on publicly available estimates and suggestions from selected industry experts, indicating a cost “learning curve” of ~30% between Vogtle units 3 and 4. Analysis assumes total operating capacity of ~2.2 GW, total capital cost of ~$32.3 billion, capacity factor of ~97%, operating life of 70 years and other operating parameters estimated by Lazard’s LCOE v14.0 results, adjusted for inflation.
97% capacity factor for 70 years. Meaning for a "Vogtle" started today, i.e. entering planning in 2006 and operational by 2023 = 17 years we have:
2026 + 17 + 70 = 2114
Do you realize the absolute insanity of trying to predict the profitability of a new built nuclear plant into the 2100s? For anyone with a basic level of economic understanding that number is an admission that new built nuclear power is absolute insanity.
EDF is already crying about renewables cratering the earning potential and increasing maintenance costs for the existing french nuclear fleet. Let alone the horrifyingly expensive new builds.
And that is France which has been actively shielding its inflexible aging nuclear fleet from renewable competition, and it still leaks in on pure economics.
And now you see the next part. That 97% capacity factor is also insanity in a world increasingly driven by renewables. EDF is today having trouble with their capacity factors reducing. How do you think that will play out?
> Since we're apparently in the business of cherry picking, I chose Olkiluoto, with a levelized cost of €30/MWH.
You do know that's wrong? Olkiluoto is also sitting up there with Hinkley, Flamanville and similar, but there are no public figures on the total cost. Only the settlement half a decade before the plant was completed, as costs and interest kept accumulating.
The only difference is that they signed a fixed price contract and the French paid for the vast majority of the plant. So you can in some cases argue that the Finnish side had an acceptable cost.
Not sure how you'll get the French to pay for this new built nuclear plant of yours. But I'm sure you'll work something out.
Flamanville 3 is also sitting at ~180 per MWh. I also love that you quickly dimissed Hinkley Point C as the "worst project ever", even though the contract was signed before they even started building.
Why don't you dare face reality? Why must new built nuclear power be the solution no matter the cost?
Do you dare look up the proposed subsidies for Sizewell C? Even before they have started building the expect cost is almost up there with Hinkley Point C.
EDF is at this point refusing any notion of a fixed price contract and are instead forcing a pure cost-plus expected profit pay as you go financing scheme. Where the ratepayers today pay enormous sums to maybe get some electricity in the 2040s.
Have you looked at the Polish subsidy scheme?
- The state gives a direct handout of ~€15B
- The state takes all financial and construction risk
- The plant gets a 40 year CFD which is adjusted to guarantee a profit for the plant.
How can you square that with your view of nuclear power being cheap to build?
I am saying that trying to justify new built nuclear power by projecting an economic life into the 2100s is just accepting that nuclear power is horrifyingly expensive but trying to use economic terms the general public does not understand to smudge the picture.
You also do realize that to have a nuclear reactor be operational for ~80 years everything but the outer shell and reactor pressure vessel is replaced. How cheap do you think that is?
The French have projected the cost to operate their paid off fleet until EOL to be €65 per MWh.
Are you starting to realize the conundrum? Or will you cherry-pick another study to not have to face reality?
I think you should show some curiosity. You are using the few sentences you cherry-picked from that Wikipedia article to shield yourself from reality.
What I linked was not a lobby group, but one of the largest institutional investors in the energy space.
And you did the same thing in that document. Finding the lowest number where the calculations they are based on make their real world application near non-existent.
It’s the report authors saying: even if we assume absolutely insane numbers new built nuclear power is still horrifyingly expensive.
You can go through comments and ask your favorite chat bot about the statements I have made. You will find that all are true, within the margin of error of like this not remembering if the source number was euros or usd.
During the most expensive month in recent years, the price has (on average) been <150 öre/kWh.
Like prices of dinosaur soup at the pump, the majority of the cost for an individual end consumer is not the electricity itself. On top of the market price, you pay fixed two fixed fees, transfer tariffs, surcharges, sales tax (moms), energy tax and other things I have forgotten.
That's the problem: the cost doesn't really go down. You can only operate nuclear if you guarantee the prices a decade ahead. That's just not realistic and the end result is that you'll end up subsidizing ever KWh produced and then you still have to factor in decommissioning costs. Nuclear is fantastic technology, but we can do so much better.
Sweden builts a lot of nuclear reactors and they have been amazingly profitable for us.
Unfortunately, many were dismantled before their end of life and we are now stuck with high energy prices.
There is no natural law that says nuclear must be expensive. Correctly managed, it is an excellent power source.
How many trillions in subsidies should we hand out to "try one more time" with nuclear power when renewables and storage already is the cheapest energy source in human history?
Achieving putative cost reduction from Nth-of-a-kind plants would involve large subsidies of large numbers of plants. The cost could well be in 13 digits.
They're hard to cost, which means that the numbers that are given are more aspirational than realistic. It's in the interest of those touting projects to be as optimistic as is tolerable when the estimate costs -- and everyone expects them to do this, so if they didn't and were more realistic they'd go nowhere.
Not arguing that solar+wind are more and more viable and economical.
But there's a weird juxtaposition here: You criticize the fact that nuclear power must be subsidized to be accomplished, but support strong social safety nets. To me, relative energy independence is a core societal goal and nuclear is a hell of a lot better than coal or oil or NG. It still requires fissile material, though.
> SMR (also mentioned in the article) doesn't make sense. Nuclear plants are better when they're bigger.
I have always found this an odd argument. Granted, thermodynamically, nuclear plants' efficiency scales with size. But allegedly fuel only makes up 10% of the lifetime cost of a plant. Even more if you think construction costs overrun.
So let's say you make a plant that is smaller and requires 50% more fuel, but is also 10% cheaper to build. You're already ahead by 4%. And SMRs at least promise far more than 10% savings.
The argument that SMRs could be cheaper due to economies if scale is often dismissed as pie in the sky - and maybe it is - but this is also precisely what brought down the cost of renewables. Germany bought their wind turbines a mere few years ago and paid way more than they would have done today.
Operational costs are more that just fuel, they are also the cost of staffing and fixed maintenance. These can also be considerable, especially if one amortizes the upgrades needed for extended service life.
Is it worth the price of energy sovereignty though? You are not just buying electricity, you are buying future independence.
It might be worth it if you factor that in.
And don’t forget all the other expertise that comes from being a country that is able to build reliable nuclear reactors. China is _the_ production superpower not just because it can build x or y, it’s because it has all the supply chains to be able to do it at scale.
If a country invests into that expertise - you get a lot of very capable engineers, a lot of tech and supply chains to deal with making it all happen, again and again, at scale. That in itself would be something that can offset the raw “price” of a single reactor, though it is very hard to quantify.
Like how much has USA actually lost by relinquishing its historical role of guarding international trade? Maybe it won some independence, but maybe the upstream effects to its economy would be bad?
We don’t know for sure about nuclear, but when a similar scientific project was put on a national scale - the space race - USA got silicon valley out of it.
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
I don’t know how fair that is. Modern leaders looked at Appeasement in pre-WW2 and thought they could pull it off by tying their economies to that of their enemy so that war would be ruinous for both. It didn’t work but only because we now know China is bankrolling Russia’s sham economy.
I am mostly in agreement with everything you say, including the push for solar and wind.
The only disagreement is that I think nuclear should be pursued even when building the plants is expensive. It is clean and mostly safe. I think energy should be abundant. It's the sort of thing you want a surplus.
The biggest disgrace is the vassalage to the US in terms of defense, which fuels the US MIC. Whenever Trump speaks of leaving NATO, I quietly hope he actually follows along this threat.
> Renewables, particularly wind and solar, are the path forward
You missed the asterisk where endless dependence on coal, gas or oil is a non-optional requirement.
Who the hell cares if nuclear is expensive to get going? Plenty of things cost a lot - healthcare, social spending, roads, all of it. Those war machines that exist to prop up the fossil fuel industry cost a pretty penny as well. It's only when we get to nuclear that the talking point becomes cost. If governments don't even want to provide energy independence then perhaps they should end the slavery they call income tax.
> The only things that ever comes up in elections about energy is the price.
Yeah, because solar and wind are both expensive and unreliable, and fossil fuels are both expensive and destructive. The point is that the price isn't worth it.
> There is still no long time storage for the nuclear waste.
This is a non-argument, just like it was last year.
> And even if we ignore that. People are worried about drones flying over airports. Wait when drones fly over nuclear power plants.
2026, new argument dropped. Almost as much of a non-argument as the one above.
> Talking about energy independence, what do you think where the nuclear fuel comes from?
> BTW if you don’t want to pay the membership fee of a country aka taxes, you’re free to leave
The membership fee isn't giving up your money, the membership fee is participating in improving the country. It's this backwards ethos that has most European countries in the toilet.
Ah yes, the sun shines at night and wind comes from trees. If you can name a country using solar and wind that isn't dependent on fossil fuels I'd love to hear about it.
I see. You make a claim, and your argument is "you haven't proved me wrong". Classic crank behavior.
You then back it up with the transparently nonsensical argument that "the sun doesn't shine at night." Batteries exist, you know.
You made the claim renewables require indefinite use of fossil fuels, you show your reasoning. An argument that ignores the existence of storage is not an argument, it's insulting verbal vomit.
No, batteries do not exist. Just like solar technology wasn't developed to a point where it was barely useful until relatively recently, battery technology is no where near what is required for any national grid. That's why there is a fundamental dependence on fossil fuels, and why there isn't a single country who can depend on wind or solar. Because there is no way to store that energy.
The only countries with a successful secondary fallback are those who use geothermal or hydro, with the latter being opposed by the same environmentalists who oppose nuclear. Not every country has geothermal energy, nor do most countries have hydro, and most of the countries with either of those don't have enough to power their grid. The only ones that do have no real manufacturing. The issue is front and center: the ones that need it the most are the ones who are unable to utilize it.
In the interim, until meaningful storage exists, it's the 'environmentalist' anti-nuclear crowd who have plunged the world into chaos and contributed to endless destruction of the planet. The world is still using fossil fuels because the world has no alternative other than nuclear.
There needs to be a stepping stone - and that stepping stone is nuclear. Until then, the stepping stone is oil, coal and gas. Which means Middle Eastern wars, environmental destruction and fracking. Dealing with whatever fallout that comes from nuclear, with room for those who can't support nuclear to use fossil fuels, while the rest of the world figures out a real way forward on how to collect and store solar and wind is the only path forward.
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.
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.