"uranium is imported into the EU from Russia" - here you prove again you have zero idea about the topic. Russia is ore importer itself. It exports enriched fuel (which can and IS easily done in EU too, by Orano and Urenco, even in Germany). Out of 22bn energy imports from RU last year, only 0.8bn were nuclear related, most of them spent by countries still running VVER units like Hungary because of their specific fuel elements but that will gradually be gone too with Westinghouse/Framatome help
">95% self-sufficiency" - oh great, and how much to get to 100% with firming, transmission and curtailment and grid forming inverters included?
If you want most flexible plants you would advocate for BWR's with BESS buffers
Idk about lobbies, but France has one of the cleanest grids in EU and did the job in under 20y. Germany, one of the most antinuclear areas is one of the worst pollutters after 25y. Austria, another antinuclear country with plenty of hydro = easy to finish the job with VRE, still has worse emissions.
nuclear is not fossil fuel. Are you from Austria/Germany? Because from what I know only there are kids told such nonsense.
reduced consumption - this sounds like sweet (post) communist times ive experienced when i was a kid.
Finland built Onkalo, Sweden started Fosmark, Switzerland approved terradura and France will have cigeo. It's not a big deal to dig a hole, except maybe for germans
Waste storage isn't a problem. It'll be stored in Cigeo just like Onkalo. Over half of Cigeo cost is already reserved/covered by EDF (it includes operation till sealing). Cost was accounted in opex just like www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte.html . So please, avoid spreading nonsense
You have 67(!!) comments in this thread all of which amount to rabidly pro-nuclear and 'nothing to see here' arguments the bulk of which have been dealt with many times over.
I don't know what it is that you are trying to achieve but that last thing that people arguing for a balanced energy mix need is this kind of zealotry.
Nuclear works, we know it works. It is expensive. It has a waste problem. It is slow to deploy and there are risks.
Your head-in-the-sand strategy is not going to result in one more nuclear deployment, but it may convince a few more people that nuclear proponents are not rational about the downsides of the technology. Which is stupid because every technology has downsides.
What arguments have been dealt with many times over? Because I do not see that. I've provided sources from eurostat, nrel, unece, ourworldindata or even fraunhofer about gas firming in Germany. I can support any of my statements with data
Waste problem for nuclear isn't different conceptually from waste problem of arsenic/cadmium/lead -> you need to isolate them somewhere deep underground for a long time. Eg. in Germany it's Herfa Neurode, in Finland-Onkalo, in Sweden - Fosmark, in Switzerland Terradura and in France - Cigeo. At their core concept it's just a deep hole that'll store dangerous waste forever.
Nuclear is slow to deploy, yet France and Sweden achieved one of the fastest decarbonizations on the planet with it. Heck even UAE with Barakah recently managed to get ahead of Portugal and DK in terms of amount of clean TWh/y
I'm in favor in deployment of nuclear and renewables because without nuclear it'll be renewables and gas. Heck, even France has a mix of nuclear and renewables and wants to expand both, just like Sweden. On the other hand countries that ban nuclear or even expand their policy on higher levels (EC, World Bank) have far worse emissions than France and are planning to use gas firming.
It's interesting you are so concerned about my comments where I didnt explicitly asked to ban renewables nor stop their deployment but was arguing in favor in deploying of more nuclear on top but you are probably less concerned about comments from the people that say nuclear shouldn't be built entirely or even not extended like in case of Belgium.
Heck even you said "were waved off from being properly fixed because they were going to be decommissioned anyway" which is total nonsense - if a plant is unsafe to operate - operation wouldnt be allowed.
Your other statements like "Oh, and good chance that in the summer months (when demand is pretty high, especially in the South of France) they may have to shut down again because of a lack of cooling capacity." do show you even don't understand that npp in France are shut not because they can't cool but to save biodiversity. It's done in some npp without cooling towers and affects very little production while France is maxing exports at the same time. More details are available here https://www.vie-publique.fr/files/rapport/pdf/288726.pdf as I've already shown
Or this statement "The cost of which (besides the maintenance costs mentioned above) has not been accounted for in the electricity pricing." is nonsense too because provisions for long term waste management are described in EDF yearly financial reports and EDF made a statement that updated cigeo costs dont affect these plans https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/journ... . Situation is similar in other areas, Gosgen for example having a full cost breakdown https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte...
So yes, my comments will probably not convince you, because you already have your position set, but these'll help others to see that some claims are pure nonsense
that's nonsense. If plants are unsafe they wouldnt run. There's no such thing as "which were waved off from being properly fixed because they were going to be decommissioned". Operation would just be banned. Issues arent critical
"electricity prices in Europe are in some cases at the technical minimum of minus €500/MWh." - it means all citizens will pay for it through cfd's. In germany its about 18bn/y
https://ourworldindata.org/low-carbon-technologies-need-far-...
https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf
https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20...
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
Or just looking at the cost of entire french fleet per court of auditors vs german EEG fund alone?
reply