DISCLAIMER: All opinions in this column reflect the views of the author(s), not of EURACTIV Media network.
Promoted content.
Nuclear is heavily subsidized, when you count all expenses from development period to start of producing energy with nuclear heat pump you see it’s more costly then solar, wind or water energy.
I think all of Europe needs to adopt the French model
Europe doesn’t have uranium mines anymore, not in the scale of what is needed. We used up our reserves during the last century. Banking on uranium now means signing an allegiance to a country exporting uranium, none of them are in Europe. We will become a pawn on the chessboard. The only way out is a drastic reduction of our consumption and investing in renewable.
Don’t take my words for granted, do the math.
Sorry.
Germany will built a giant Handcrank before Nuclear makes a comeback here.The topic is dead Nationally, for at least the foreseeable Future.
Good on Nations developing newer Generations though.Smaller, modular Tech might even bring the likes of us back into the fold.
I’m so sick of this pro-nuclear propaganda spamming. I have never seen anti-nuclear propaganda spamming this hard on reddit. It’s clear that third party is pushing their agenda here.
Man, these energy companies must have huge marketing budgets.
I am curious why it ‘must be’ supported, if EU countries think there are better alternatives?
No, we mustn’t!
Not again. Why is this brought up almost daily in this sub?
nuclear fusion, yes
Yes, the most expensive known form of energy must be supported at all costs. But only if you have shares in these companies. If you want to have it cheaper and better, you expand renewable energies.
Support all you want… but dont for one second delay phase out of carbon because “we’ll soon have a solution”.
Make your plans without nuclear. If we suddenly find a bunch if nuclear plants all around europe, sure, lets use them… but till then.
No, thank you.
Here’s the thing.
Currently, wind and solar is just cheaper ( even with battery power to make output stable), it’s faster to setup and costs are declining rapidly (solar 80 % in the last decade), so it’s advantages are growing.
When looking claims that nuclear power is cheap, it’s either with no numbers to back it up, or theoretical numbers, that doesn’t reflect what we see in reality.
I’m very interested in seeing numbers that actually show nuclear energy as a viable alternative.
I used to be a pro-nuclear energy 15-20 years ago, when the other sustainable energy sources were much more expensive. But today I cannot see it.
No, it must not.
The first nuclear power plant is not even 70 years old. In that time, shorter than an average human’s life, Since then there have been 2 major accidents, several minor ones and who knows how many that didn’t become public. Those accidents are capable of turning big areas of land in death deserts, of causing global economic crises and influencing political events. The question that arises when using this technique is not if, but when the next big blow will come. Therefore I say: Take another 20 € from my monthly salary, if it is necessary for the development of sufficient renewable energies, but don’t get the idea to dance with the nuclear devil better than the devil himself.
*angry german screeching*
When we want to end dependency on energy imports and lower CO2 emissions as quickly as possible it’s not the way to get there:
1. We would still be dependent on the important of fuel
2. It take decades to build new reactors that first have to be developed
Germany wants to exit coal power by 2030 and there will be political pressure to lower imports of natural gas from Russia. We can’t wait on new reactors being developed and built. That would easily take until 2040, looking at the latest French nuclear projects.
There is no other way for us than turning the North Sea into a giant windfarm and putting solar panels on every roof top.
Duh obviously
Last I checked most countries don’t have a long term solution for storage of spent fuel, has that changed at all?
desperate industry – Nuclear relies on lobbying and marketing since its not cost competitive to cleaner options
20 comments
DISCLAIMER: All opinions in this column reflect the views of the author(s), not of EURACTIV Media network.
Promoted content.
Nuclear is heavily subsidized, when you count all expenses from development period to start of producing energy with nuclear heat pump you see it’s more costly then solar, wind or water energy.
I think all of Europe needs to adopt the French model
Europe doesn’t have uranium mines anymore, not in the scale of what is needed. We used up our reserves during the last century. Banking on uranium now means signing an allegiance to a country exporting uranium, none of them are in Europe. We will become a pawn on the chessboard. The only way out is a drastic reduction of our consumption and investing in renewable.
Don’t take my words for granted, do the math.
Sorry.
Germany will built a giant Handcrank before Nuclear makes a comeback here.The topic is dead Nationally, for at least the foreseeable Future.
Good on Nations developing newer Generations though.Smaller, modular Tech might even bring the likes of us back into the fold.
I’m so sick of this pro-nuclear propaganda spamming. I have never seen anti-nuclear propaganda spamming this hard on reddit. It’s clear that third party is pushing their agenda here.
Man, these energy companies must have huge marketing budgets.
I am curious why it ‘must be’ supported, if EU countries think there are better alternatives?
No, we mustn’t!
Not again. Why is this brought up almost daily in this sub?
nuclear fusion, yes
Yes, the most expensive known form of energy must be supported at all costs. But only if you have shares in these companies. If you want to have it cheaper and better, you expand renewable energies.
Support all you want… but dont for one second delay phase out of carbon because “we’ll soon have a solution”.
Make your plans without nuclear. If we suddenly find a bunch if nuclear plants all around europe, sure, lets use them… but till then.
No, thank you.
Here’s the thing.
Currently, wind and solar is just cheaper ( even with battery power to make output stable), it’s faster to setup and costs are declining rapidly (solar 80 % in the last decade), so it’s advantages are growing.
When looking claims that nuclear power is cheap, it’s either with no numbers to back it up, or theoretical numbers, that doesn’t reflect what we see in reality.
I’m very interested in seeing numbers that actually show nuclear energy as a viable alternative.
I used to be a pro-nuclear energy 15-20 years ago, when the other sustainable energy sources were much more expensive. But today I cannot see it.
No, it must not.
The first nuclear power plant is not even 70 years old. In that time, shorter than an average human’s life, Since then there have been 2 major accidents, several minor ones and who knows how many that didn’t become public. Those accidents are capable of turning big areas of land in death deserts, of causing global economic crises and influencing political events. The question that arises when using this technique is not if, but when the next big blow will come. Therefore I say: Take another 20 € from my monthly salary, if it is necessary for the development of sufficient renewable energies, but don’t get the idea to dance with the nuclear devil better than the devil himself.
*angry german screeching*
When we want to end dependency on energy imports and lower CO2 emissions as quickly as possible it’s not the way to get there:
1. We would still be dependent on the important of fuel
2. It take decades to build new reactors that first have to be developed
Germany wants to exit coal power by 2030 and there will be political pressure to lower imports of natural gas from Russia. We can’t wait on new reactors being developed and built. That would easily take until 2040, looking at the latest French nuclear projects.
There is no other way for us than turning the North Sea into a giant windfarm and putting solar panels on every roof top.
Duh obviously
Last I checked most countries don’t have a long term solution for storage of spent fuel, has that changed at all?
desperate industry – Nuclear relies on lobbying and marketing since its not cost competitive to cleaner options