So you want to create a completely new industry. From the ground. With all existing experts having retired. Demanding high quality, no-fault tolerance production. Dependent on resources not found in Europe.
Look, I love nuclear technology. But time has moved on. The costs to rebuild this industry is astronomical and means we lose out on key-future technology like batteries.
Edit: But then there are bombs. And especially French love their nukes due national security. This is the only reason to keep pushing for nuclear, since Russia, the US and China are not gonna change direction on this either. But the very least we could do is be honest about it.
Edit 2: Changed from "World has moved on" to "time has moved on", since evidently China has invested for a good 2 decades to build their own fully functional nuclear-industry. Proving my point that it takes dedicated investment, network effects and scale to rebuild this industry. After all, they too want to mass produce nukes.
> So you want to create a completely new industry. From the ground. With all existing experts having retired.
This is an article about Europe. Do you really believe France alone is operating 57 nuclear reactors, and producing 70% of its energy via fission, without the industry, the knowledge, and with no experts left? Is chatgpt running everything?
1: How man reactors were built in the 1970s and are nearing end-of-life?
2: How many reactors has Europe built since 2005?
3: What's the overrun time of reactors in Europe, compared to China?
The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the industry has existed. It was world class, but the institutional knowledge to bring it back to this quality does not exist and would need to be rebuilt for the new generation of reactors. And we are not even talking Generation 4 here.
They also rely on imports of uranium - e.g. from Niger, which recently had quite the fallout with France.
It does not look to me at even a casual glance that French nuclear tech could fully work on its own. Similar for the UK.
It is not just about the experts, the supply chain too. Although, of course how much that matters in comparison is the question, since pretty much everything nowadays depends on some faraway place.
If you had followed the crisis from 2022 when a quarter of the reactors were out of service, you wouldn't ask that question. They had to fly in welders from the US because they were not able to fix the problem... Also, every new nuclear project done by the French in this century has been a complete disaster. Flamanville, Olkiluoto and now Hinkley Point C.
You are naturally correct and I have corrected my statement. I intended to refer to the West but my wording was factually incorrect.
China has invested so much for so long into nuclear technology that they now have the industry which Europe once had. And to rebuild the same type of industry would take the same amount of effort that China had to do. Meanwhile, the US can't even build their own warships anymore.
China has been scaling back and delaying their nuclear program in favor of renewables since Fukushima.
At saturation, given current nuclear build out based on actual construction starts and China’s grid size, China will end up with 2-3% nuclear power in the grid mix.
Enough to sustain a civilian industry to complement any military ambitions, but it does not move the needle.
In terms of electricity China is all in on renewables and storage with a backstop of locally sourced firming coal.
These kind of "all the experts are retired" take are getting tiresome.
When you think about it, until recently there were no experts in stabilizing the electric grid on a continental scale using renewables, because it was literally never needed before! Didn't stop experts from sprouting out when it became necessary.
There were no experts in building continental scale EV charging frameworks, either, until we needed them, and then there were.
Same thing all over again.
What we can say about nuclear is that it's been continuously supplying a non-negligible part of Europe's energy need for generations, and there are people who've been maintaining that. That's more than what we can say about a lot of our industrial needs in 2025.
The technology of electricity production has advanced since nuclear peaked in the mid 1980s.
We have better/cheaper ways of producing electricity than attaching a heat source to tank of water, boiling the water to produce steam, then forcing the steam through a turbine, capturing the kinetic energy in order to turn the rotor of an alternator. Whether that heat source is coal or nuclear, you're still looking at what is fundamentally a 19th century design - attach a steam engine to an alternator.
Gas turbines remove the boiling water/steam engine part. Wind turbines remove heat from the process completely and solar PV removes the mechanical part.
All 3 technologies are base on mass production - particularly solar PV. And so all have seem massive price decreases which is expected to continue. Meanwhile nuclear gets more and more expensive.
Globally, nuclear peaked about 2 decades in terms of energy production ago, 2.5 decades ago in terms of number of operating turbines, 3 decades ago in terms of share of electricity production and 4 or 5 decades ago in terms of plants under construction.
We deploy 10x the capacity in renewables and batteries than we do in nuclear and its only accelerating. We are trending towards 1/10th the cost of nuclear per GW. There is no going back just due to the sheer scale of mass manufacturing renewables.
We are below $1B/GW for solar.
China just opened a $100/kWh ($100M/GWh) battery storage plant. All deployable within a year.
Contrast this to $16B/GW for recent nuclear plants, and you don’t benefit from starting a build for another 20 years
Look at the boom of nuclear in the 70s. The industry wide and deep expertise from production, to planning, to logistics. Particularly the french did this par excellence. But nuclear has first languished and is now almost non-existent in Europe.
Contrary to capitalist believe you cannot solve all issues fast by throwing unreasonable amounts of money at it. You must built industries that synergies with each other, have deep institutional knowledge and capable workers that can deliver the tiny tolerances required to make nuclear safe and effective.
We simply do not have the (intellectual) capacity for this anymore and the effort is better spent on battery technology if Europe actually wants to have any stake in future of EV and renewables. It is significantly less capital intense too.
>So you want to create a completely new industry. From the ground. With all existing experts having retired. Demanding high quality, no-fault tolerance production. Dependent on resources not found in Europe.
You could say most of the same things about batteries. There is a little lithium in Europe. But Europe doesn't have a battery industry. It's in China. And you could buy batteries from China, but we aren't doing that and the political trends don't support more energy dependence on China. You could also buy nuclear reactors from China, but of course Europe doesn't want to do that either.
What they are proposing is that Europe is going to pivot from not making batteries to not building nuclear plants. They will, however, write lots of papers about the reactors (neé batteries) they would like to build, if only the prevailing wage or regulatory regime or other economic excuse du jour wasn't stopping them.
It has increasingly become my impression after watching these debates unfold that the core technology is not the real problem. The problem is a lack of political will to encourage the growth of new industries in green energy, failing both at regulatory and industrial policy. Solar is succeeding, not because it is the best form of energy (though it is) but because it is mostly paid for and installed by individuals and small businesses (with a little capital you can own your own solar farm!).
Sweden had a major company try to make lithium batteries but it was not economical viable without major and continuously infusion of government subsidies. The company Northvolt is the largest bankruptcy in modern Swedish industrial history.
> The problem is a lack of political will to encourage the growth of new industries in green energy, failing both at regulatory and industrial policy
100% this, no doubt about it. There is a collective lack of investment into the future and I'd say we are witnessing managed decay more than anything else.
There are currently 419 reactors in operation, 76 in construction, 140 in pre-construction and 290 planned/announced. I have a slightly older version of that chart, where those numbers were 69, 92 and 178, respectively.
Note that both the numbers are pretty large compared to the installed base (more than doubling the installed base), that they are increasing for the earlier stages (indicating more is in the pipeline than is currently being built), and that all the pipeline stages are increasing over time.
Which is of course consistent with the fact that 34 countries have now signed the international pledge to triple nuclear output that was first agreed at COP28. These countries include: France, the United States, China, Japan, Poland, Sweden, etc. India has plans and is on track to triple by 2032, but hasn't signed the pledge.
I am also not sure why you think that "all existing experts" have retired and there is no nuclear industry. The World Nuclear Exhibition in Paris November 4-6 of this year had over 1000 exhibitors, and more than half of those were from Europe.
Even phase-out-Germany still has substantial nuclear engineering capacity, there's even a nuclear fuel factory in Lingen. And of course the actual nuclear component of a nuclear power plant is only around 20%. About the same effort/cost goes into the steam turbines, of which Siemens is a major worldwide supplier.
And of course civil nuclear programs have next to nothing to do with military nuclear programs. There are many more users of civil nuclear power than there are military nuclear powers, and the military nuclear powers invariably got the bomb first, and added a civil program later, with some like Israel only having a military nuclear program, not a civilian one.
In fact, there's a fun anecdote from the beginnings of the French nuclear program, since you mention France: when the Messmer plan got started, the military wanted to deploy an indigenous type of reactor for the civilian program that was more suitable for military uses, but in the end the government decided to standardize on a US Westinghouse pressurized water reactors that was not useful for military purposes.
> There are currently 419 reactors in operation, 76 in construction, 140 in pre-construction and 290 planned/announced. I have a slightly older version of that chart, where those numbers were 69, 92 and 178, respectively.
At about 1 GWatt per reactor, thats about 500 GWatt total new nuclear built over what must be decades, if it is built at all. A fair chunk of the existing 419 reactors will be retired in that time.
Meanwhile, Gemini tells me the planet added well over 100 GW renewable generation in 2024. That 100 GW is dispatchable. It was over 500 GW peak. Almost no renewables were retired in 2024. The rate new renewables are being added is growing at least quadratically.
Maybe Europe sunshine and wind resources mean they have no choice, it's nuclear or nothing. But renewables are being added at the pace they are for a reason. In the places that do have the renewable resources, they are far cheaper. If Europe is forced to go down the nuclear path, they are going to be paying far more than other places on the planet for their energy.
There's a German documentary called "Yellow Cake". It is about the cost of mining uranium. It really was eye opening and I have seen it like ten years ago when I was about thirty. It took thirty years for someone to show me how incredibly devastating the mining of Uranium is to the environment. That's how good of kept secret it is. Because once you see it, you would never ever want nuclear energy ever again. And you finally understand how bad people are lying when they say, it is clean energy. It destroys entire landscapes for generations to come! It is extremely expensive and it is very finite.
Here in Ontario, residentially we pay about 0.09 USD per kWh at night and 0.18 USD with demand peak pricing on weekday afternoons. Or if you have flat rate it's about 0.13 USD per kWh. This is considered very expensive by Canadian standards and it's due to our nuclear power program where about 55% of electricity is from nuclear, the rest from a mix of wind/hydro/solar/biofuel and gas. The increased price during the day is due to the need to burn a bit of gas at peak demand. The grid is otherwise nearly carbon neutral, and the long-term plan is to phase out the gas with a mix of wind, nuclear and pumped storage.
We pay less in practice than the rates given above for power, because the government also subsidizes it. But even without that I understand such rates would be relatively cheap in most European countries.
Consumer price of the energy. Doesn't include connection fees, but those are a minority of the cost. Includes special energy taxes. But not sales tax.
For a real example, I'm on flat rate and if I use 1000 kWh my monthly bill will be 211 CAD (effective rate 0.21 CAD / 0.13 EUR per kWh) including taxes, connection, delivery, everything, but without subsidy. The amount I pay after the subsidy is applied would be less at 165 CAD.
I was curious, so I asked an AI (Gemini) to compare the wholesale price of electricity in Ontario vs Sydney, in Canadian dollars, including any subsidies in the price. The reasoning is the wholesale price best reflects the cost of production.
The outcome was surprisingly close. Sydney seemed to be a little more expensive, with a spot market average of CAD$73/MWh vs CAD$65/MWh. A wash really.
I don't know what is going on with the retail prices. My rule of thumb is multiply by 3, but your multiple is closer to 4.5. I live in Brisbane for example, where the average price is $100/MWh and we pay around $.30/kWh retail. Have you looked at https://www.energymadeeasy.gov.au/ ?
Existing nuclear power is something to keep around as long as it is safe and needed.
The problem is that new built western nuclear power requires ~18 cents/kWh (Vogtle, FV3, HPC etc.) when running at 100% 24/7 all year around, excluding backup, transmission costs and taxes.
Now try sell that electricity to a home owner with solar PV and maybe a battery and you will get laughed out of the room almost the entire year. A firming new built nuclear plant with ruinously high CAPEX and acceptable OPEX is economic lunacy.
This does not even take into account that new built nuclear power requires ~15-20 years from political decision to working plants.
As soon as new built nuclear power’s costs and timelines are confronted with reality it just does not work out.
> Now try sell that electricity to a home owner with solar PV and maybe a battery and you will get laughed out of the room.
In EU, the split between flats (apartments) and houses is roughly 50/50, depending on how densely populated the country is. In the US, it about 1/3 in apartments. Canada is roughly 50/50, with a slight detached-house bias.
Not that it doesn't mean houseowner vs renter. Landlords have next to zero incentive to install solar PV because renters pay for electricity. In the US about 7% of homes have solar, I don't know about EU and Canada.
Solar can't provide baseline and even in sunny SoCal, you will go back to the grid often enough that being off-the-grid isn't reasonable for the typical household.
Anyway, even if that were correct numbers, it would misleading on several fronts, as the only new western reactors were unrepresentative FOAK builds, and also troubled beyond just regular FOAK status.
Furthermore, the costs tend to be calculated for the period while they are repaying the loans, so it's mostly capital costs. Once the plant is paid off, the price drops dramatically.
The average build time is currently 6.5 years, median slightly less, trend downwards.
As I understand it, the technologies exist by which home owners who already have solar can draw only as much grid energy as they actually need. There are multiple uses of nuclear energy beyond home usage and there would be those who do not have access to adequate solar or wind energy. Apartment residences in large cities are one of the target segments.
Radiophobia is an irrational or excessive fear of ionizing radiation, leading to overestimating the health risks of radiation compared to other risks. It can impede rational decision-making and contribute to counter-productive behavior and policies.
It's hard to see how non-dispatchable generation like nuclear can be competitive in Northern European markets dominated by intermittent wind power. So much wind capacity has already been built in Denmark that it sometimes meets 100% of electricity demand. Britain will be there soon, certainly long before substantial numbers of new nuclear reactors could conceivably be built.
I suspect the UK will only build the nuclear capacity required to keep the industry around on national security grounds.
Giving a preference to intermittent renewables is not a law of nature, but a rule that is irrational and needs to be removed.
Denmark is just now hitting problems with their wind strategy, and of course dependent on being a transit land between large producers and consumers. And currently looking at nuclear. As is Norway.
One of the reason is that intermittent renewables are pro-cyclical, that is once they reach a certain level of saturation, they cannibalize each other even more than they cannibalize steady suppliers.
The current plan is to quadruple nuclear power in the UK.
> Nuclear power is dispatchable, unlike renewables.
While you can turn nuclear up and down a little bit the fuel costs are negligible so it costs the same to generate 80% or 100% of rated output. It's done in France because nuclear makes up so much of their generation capacity they have no other option.
> Giving a preference to intermittent renewables is not a law of nature, but a rule that is irrational and needs to be removed.
I think carbon-free generation options should be considered dispassionately with a focus on minimising cost and reducing CO2 emissions as quickly as possible. But there is path dependence at this point. The wind generation capacity will already have been built out before many more nuclear plants come online. I think this will make the economics of expanding nuclear power generation unattractive because we will already have made the commitments to buy the wind generation and we will instead look for the lowest priced options to fill the gaps.
> Denmark is just now hitting problems with their wind strategy, and of course dependent on being a transit land between large producers and consumers. And currently looking at nuclear. As is Norway.
>
> One of the reason is that intermittent renewables are pro-cyclical, that is once they reach a certain level of saturation, they cannibalize each other even more than they cannibalize steady suppliers.
The fast decreasing cost of batteries will help smooth out fluctuations in wind generation across a day or two. That should reduce the level of cannibalisation between wind projects substantially, though does not remove the need for backup power for longer periods of little wind.
I suspect the proposed SMR projects in Norway and Denmark will depend on whether anyone is able to get SMR build costs down sufficiently to make them attractive. It certainly makes no sense to ban them outright.
> The current plan is to quadruple nuclear power in the UK.
That was the 2050 target from the last government. In terms of actual commitments the only planned plant after Hinkley C is currently Sizewell C. At the same time 4 of our 5 remaining nuclear plants will be decommissioned by early 2030. I think the target is highly unlikely to be met.
There is a £2.5 billion investment in SMRs (if you can call reactors around a 1/3rd the size of existing nuclear power plants small...) but will they really have reduced costs?
Australia, for instance, powers 40% of its electricity with renewables.
However, electricity makes up ~20% of _total_ energy consumption which means renewables made up 9% of _total_ energy production.
As the electrification of transport, industry, manufacturing, etc proceeds, the demand for electricity will increase (in the case of Australia, we need to 5x our electricity production).
Ironically, legislators are disincentivized from stimulating electrification as getting to 100% renewable electricity production is easier when electricity is only 20% of our energy usage.
Energy consumption does not equal useful work though. Much of that non-electrical energy consumption is wasted, e.g. car engines are only about 30% efficient and heat pumps can provide 3-5x the amount of warmth compared to the electrical input required to run. So we’re probably looking at around a 2x increase in electricity consumption rather than 5x.
Note that Denmark would have to keep deploying more wind capacity as the country would need more electricity over time (electrification of the transportation, heat, industry, etc.).
So, even if some days wind capacity does meets 100% of the electricity demand nowadays, we would need add more capacity.
1) Countries have major political interest in whether other countries have nuclear reactors
2) Countries are already, at large scale, manipulating discourse across the internet to achieve their political goals
Then of course it follows that any comment thread on a semi-popular or higher site about whether a country should build more nuclear reactors is going to be heavily manipulated by said countries. That's where (most) of the insane people in such threads are probably coming from.
How are we supposed to survive as a civilization with such corrupted channels of communication?
What is, according to you, the political interest?
There are countries that have interest of having gas or oil bought from them.
It is not clear if they are pro or against other countries going nuclear: on one hand, nuclear will replace part of their market. On the other hand, lobbying to move towards nuclear may impede progress in replacing gas and oil by renewable (a strategy would be to lobby so that the nuclear project starts and then lobby so that the project stagnates and never delivers).
There are countries that have interest in seeing nuclear adopted because they have a market for the ore extraction or waste processing. There are countries that have interest in seeing nuclear not adopted because they have a market around other generations.
Finally, some countries may want to see their neighbors adopt nuclear: the neighbor will pay all the front bills and take all the risk (economical but also PR, or the cost of educating experts, ...), and if they succeed, they will provide import energy very cheap that can fill the gaps the country did not wanted to invest in.
So it is not clear if there is just one stream of lobbying. The reality is probably that every "sides" does somehow contain manipulative discourse from foreign countries.
Does this apply also to fossil energy threads? Countries have a major political interest whether other countries use fossil energy, to mitigate the climate catastrophe and ramp down fossils use.
>... composed of representatives from employers' associations, workers' unions (trade unions) and civil society organisations.
I'm not sure how up they are on technical issues like the rapid progress in batteries and solar and the like.
Hinkley C in the UK was approved in 2016 and probably will be producing in 2031 so 15 years on. (cost ~£40bn). In the last 15 years the cost of battery storage and of solar panels have both fallen about 10x. If that goes on they will be much cheaper but the time nuclear comes online.
I am a former nuclear opponent. I used to think that nuclear waste was glowing green like they show in the Simpsons and in the Doom 1 game. Once I had access to the Internet in this century, I learned better.
Here are some sources of information that helped me understand the two oft-cited nuclear disasters better.
One regular complaint is the costs of nuclear energy. This is likely true in the US due to regulations that have not been revised for newer technology, but such high costs are cited around the world.
Likewise, the amount of waste and the danger of the waste is not well understood either, and certainly lots of education is needed here. For e.g., most people do not know that the volume of waste is limited and that the same waste can be reused in reactors of other designs.
I do believe that national ego issues get in the way of fixes. I believe that such ego issues got in the way of honest repairs (Fukushima) and timely action (Chernobyl). Certainly, nuclear inspections are still treated with suspicion and hostility, but in fact full transparency and integrity should be the norm.
Corruption and profit-centric thinking are two other problems that plague the nuclear industry. South Korea has had lots of corruption and shortcuts (https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/22/136020/how-greed...). One of the accusations in India against France was that France licenses outdated nuclear reactor technology despite having newer technology. I am unable to locate a link supporting this accusation.
With thorium reactors and Small Module Reactors, there are many modern solutions to safety.
We need to stop citing and quoting US-based costs and problems that are linked to outdated US regulations. There are other countries that have more modern regulations and modern technologies.
Modern energi consumption confuses me. There has never been more wind and solar, coal fired plants are almost a thing of the past. Everything is becoming increasingly energy efficient, yet we produce more CO2?
Mostly, what you are seeing is that the half of the world living in the India-SEA-China circle [1] are living much better lives, which requires far more energy then living as subsistence farmers did. In the G7, CO2 emissions have declined (but not as fast as they need to stay below the 2C target) but the rest of the world is emitting more: during the negotiations for the Kyoto Accords in 1998 G7 countries produced about half of the world's CO2 and now they produce about a quarter. That's mostly because the rest of the world started emitting more and only a little because of drops in the amount produced by G7 countries.
There is obviously major ethical issues here. The rich, already developed world- having emitted enormous quantities of CO2 to get there- telling poor, undeveloped people living as subsistence farmers that they can't use any more energy because of all the CO2 already in the atmosphere is a really hard argument to make, locking them into being poor forever while the developed world benefits from all that CO2 consumption. But on the other hand, by skipping right to large scale solar, maybe those inside the circle can do a better job?
Roughly, greenhouse gases are, a quarter from (animal) agriculture, quarter from energy, quarter from industry (cement/steel etc), and a quarter from transport.
i couldnt believe that animal ag was the same as power, so i looked it up. Animal ag is ~14%, power is ~35%. so not close to equivilant, but ag is still a way bigger percentage than i would have guessed!
Readit News
Look, I love nuclear technology. But time has moved on. The costs to rebuild this industry is astronomical and means we lose out on key-future technology like batteries.
Edit: But then there are bombs. And especially French love their nukes due national security. This is the only reason to keep pushing for nuclear, since Russia, the US and China are not gonna change direction on this either. But the very least we could do is be honest about it.
Edit 2: Changed from "World has moved on" to "time has moved on", since evidently China has invested for a good 2 decades to build their own fully functional nuclear-industry. Proving my point that it takes dedicated investment, network effects and scale to rebuild this industry. After all, they too want to mass produce nukes.
This is an article about Europe. Do you really believe France alone is operating 57 nuclear reactors, and producing 70% of its energy via fission, without the industry, the knowledge, and with no experts left? Is chatgpt running everything?
1: How man reactors were built in the 1970s and are nearing end-of-life?
2: How many reactors has Europe built since 2005?
3: What's the overrun time of reactors in Europe, compared to China?
The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the industry has existed. It was world class, but the institutional knowledge to bring it back to this quality does not exist and would need to be rebuilt for the new generation of reactors. And we are not even talking Generation 4 here.
They also rely on imports of uranium - e.g. from Niger, which recently had quite the fallout with France.
It does not look to me at even a casual glance that French nuclear tech could fully work on its own. Similar for the UK.
It is not just about the experts, the supply chain too. Although, of course how much that matters in comparison is the question, since pretty much everything nowadays depends on some faraway place.
China's got 27 reactors under construction right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
China has invested so much for so long into nuclear technology that they now have the industry which Europe once had. And to rebuild the same type of industry would take the same amount of effort that China had to do. Meanwhile, the US can't even build their own warships anymore.
At saturation, given current nuclear build out based on actual construction starts and China’s grid size, China will end up with 2-3% nuclear power in the grid mix.
Enough to sustain a civilian industry to complement any military ambitions, but it does not move the needle.
In terms of electricity China is all in on renewables and storage with a backstop of locally sourced firming coal.
When you think about it, until recently there were no experts in stabilizing the electric grid on a continental scale using renewables, because it was literally never needed before! Didn't stop experts from sprouting out when it became necessary.
There were no experts in building continental scale EV charging frameworks, either, until we needed them, and then there were.
Same thing all over again.
What we can say about nuclear is that it's been continuously supplying a non-negligible part of Europe's energy need for generations, and there are people who've been maintaining that. That's more than what we can say about a lot of our industrial needs in 2025.
Come again?
We have better/cheaper ways of producing electricity than attaching a heat source to tank of water, boiling the water to produce steam, then forcing the steam through a turbine, capturing the kinetic energy in order to turn the rotor of an alternator. Whether that heat source is coal or nuclear, you're still looking at what is fundamentally a 19th century design - attach a steam engine to an alternator.
Gas turbines remove the boiling water/steam engine part. Wind turbines remove heat from the process completely and solar PV removes the mechanical part.
All 3 technologies are base on mass production - particularly solar PV. And so all have seem massive price decreases which is expected to continue. Meanwhile nuclear gets more and more expensive.
Globally, nuclear peaked about 2 decades in terms of energy production ago, 2.5 decades ago in terms of number of operating turbines, 3 decades ago in terms of share of electricity production and 4 or 5 decades ago in terms of plants under construction.
We are below $1B/GW for solar. China just opened a $100/kWh ($100M/GWh) battery storage plant. All deployable within a year.
Contrast this to $16B/GW for recent nuclear plants, and you don’t benefit from starting a build for another 20 years
Contrary to capitalist believe you cannot solve all issues fast by throwing unreasonable amounts of money at it. You must built industries that synergies with each other, have deep institutional knowledge and capable workers that can deliver the tiny tolerances required to make nuclear safe and effective.
We simply do not have the (intellectual) capacity for this anymore and the effort is better spent on battery technology if Europe actually wants to have any stake in future of EV and renewables. It is significantly less capital intense too.
Deleted Comment
You could say most of the same things about batteries. There is a little lithium in Europe. But Europe doesn't have a battery industry. It's in China. And you could buy batteries from China, but we aren't doing that and the political trends don't support more energy dependence on China. You could also buy nuclear reactors from China, but of course Europe doesn't want to do that either.
What they are proposing is that Europe is going to pivot from not making batteries to not building nuclear plants. They will, however, write lots of papers about the reactors (neé batteries) they would like to build, if only the prevailing wage or regulatory regime or other economic excuse du jour wasn't stopping them.
It has increasingly become my impression after watching these debates unfold that the core technology is not the real problem. The problem is a lack of political will to encourage the growth of new industries in green energy, failing both at regulatory and industrial policy. Solar is succeeding, not because it is the best form of energy (though it is) but because it is mostly paid for and installed by individuals and small businesses (with a little capital you can own your own solar farm!).
100% this, no doubt about it. There is a collective lack of investment into the future and I'd say we are witnessing managed decay more than anything else.
The Finnish EPR only took 18 years of construction. What a marvel of engineering and planning.
There is a massive nuclear renaissance in-progress.
According to the following tracker:
https://globalenergymonitor.github.io/maps/trackers/nuclear/
There are currently 419 reactors in operation, 76 in construction, 140 in pre-construction and 290 planned/announced. I have a slightly older version of that chart, where those numbers were 69, 92 and 178, respectively.
Note that both the numbers are pretty large compared to the installed base (more than doubling the installed base), that they are increasing for the earlier stages (indicating more is in the pipeline than is currently being built), and that all the pipeline stages are increasing over time.
Which is of course consistent with the fact that 34 countries have now signed the international pledge to triple nuclear output that was first agreed at COP28. These countries include: France, the United States, China, Japan, Poland, Sweden, etc. India has plans and is on track to triple by 2032, but hasn't signed the pledge.
I am also not sure why you think that "all existing experts" have retired and there is no nuclear industry. The World Nuclear Exhibition in Paris November 4-6 of this year had over 1000 exhibitors, and more than half of those were from Europe.
https://www.framatome.com/en/evenements-clients/world-nuclea...
Even phase-out-Germany still has substantial nuclear engineering capacity, there's even a nuclear fuel factory in Lingen. And of course the actual nuclear component of a nuclear power plant is only around 20%. About the same effort/cost goes into the steam turbines, of which Siemens is a major worldwide supplier.
And of course civil nuclear programs have next to nothing to do with military nuclear programs. There are many more users of civil nuclear power than there are military nuclear powers, and the military nuclear powers invariably got the bomb first, and added a civil program later, with some like Israel only having a military nuclear program, not a civilian one.
In fact, there's a fun anecdote from the beginnings of the French nuclear program, since you mention France: when the Messmer plan got started, the military wanted to deploy an indigenous type of reactor for the civilian program that was more suitable for military uses, but in the end the government decided to standardize on a US Westinghouse pressurized water reactors that was not useful for military purposes.
At about 1 GWatt per reactor, thats about 500 GWatt total new nuclear built over what must be decades, if it is built at all. A fair chunk of the existing 419 reactors will be retired in that time.
Meanwhile, Gemini tells me the planet added well over 100 GW renewable generation in 2024. That 100 GW is dispatchable. It was over 500 GW peak. Almost no renewables were retired in 2024. The rate new renewables are being added is growing at least quadratically.
Maybe Europe sunshine and wind resources mean they have no choice, it's nuclear or nothing. But renewables are being added at the pace they are for a reason. In the places that do have the renewable resources, they are far cheaper. If Europe is forced to go down the nuclear path, they are going to be paying far more than other places on the planet for their energy.
We pay less in practice than the rates given above for power, because the government also subsidizes it. But even without that I understand such rates would be relatively cheap in most European countries.
Provincial regulatory report from 2025-2026:
* https://oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20251017...
Search for "RPP Price Report" for previous ones:
* https://www.oeb.ca/consultations-and-projects/policy-initiat...
For a real example, I'm on flat rate and if I use 1000 kWh my monthly bill will be 211 CAD (effective rate 0.21 CAD / 0.13 EUR per kWh) including taxes, connection, delivery, everything, but without subsidy. The amount I pay after the subsidy is applied would be less at 165 CAD.
Bulk prices at exchanges are way lower, like 2.2¢ per kWh: https://www.ieso.ca/Power-Data/Price-Overview/Ontario-Market...
The outcome was surprisingly close. Sydney seemed to be a little more expensive, with a spot market average of CAD$73/MWh vs CAD$65/MWh. A wash really.
I don't know what is going on with the retail prices. My rule of thumb is multiply by 3, but your multiple is closer to 4.5. I live in Brisbane for example, where the average price is $100/MWh and we pay around $.30/kWh retail. Have you looked at https://www.energymadeeasy.gov.au/ ?
The problem is that new built western nuclear power requires ~18 cents/kWh (Vogtle, FV3, HPC etc.) when running at 100% 24/7 all year around, excluding backup, transmission costs and taxes.
Now try sell that electricity to a home owner with solar PV and maybe a battery and you will get laughed out of the room almost the entire year. A firming new built nuclear plant with ruinously high CAPEX and acceptable OPEX is economic lunacy.
This does not even take into account that new built nuclear power requires ~15-20 years from political decision to working plants.
As soon as new built nuclear power’s costs and timelines are confronted with reality it just does not work out.
In EU, the split between flats (apartments) and houses is roughly 50/50, depending on how densely populated the country is. In the US, it about 1/3 in apartments. Canada is roughly 50/50, with a slight detached-house bias.
Not that it doesn't mean houseowner vs renter. Landlords have next to zero incentive to install solar PV because renters pay for electricity. In the US about 7% of homes have solar, I don't know about EU and Canada.
Solar can't provide baseline and even in sunny SoCal, you will go back to the grid often enough that being off-the-grid isn't reasonable for the typical household.
Anyway, we still need new nuclear power plants.
Anyway, even if that were correct numbers, it would misleading on several fronts, as the only new western reactors were unrepresentative FOAK builds, and also troubled beyond just regular FOAK status.
Furthermore, the costs tend to be calculated for the period while they are repaying the loans, so it's mostly capital costs. Once the plant is paid off, the price drops dramatically.
The average build time is currently 6.5 years, median slightly less, trend downwards.
About reactor malfunctions and fallout?
Yes, I know the chances are slim and you know as well as I do they're not 0.
The actual safety is almost entirely unrelated to the fears people have. There is even a term for this: radiophobia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia
Radiophobia is an irrational or excessive fear of ionizing radiation, leading to overestimating the health risks of radiation compared to other risks. It can impede rational decision-making and contribute to counter-productive behavior and policies.
I suspect the UK will only build the nuclear capacity required to keep the industry around on national security grounds.
Giving a preference to intermittent renewables is not a law of nature, but a rule that is irrational and needs to be removed.
Denmark is just now hitting problems with their wind strategy, and of course dependent on being a transit land between large producers and consumers. And currently looking at nuclear. As is Norway.
One of the reason is that intermittent renewables are pro-cyclical, that is once they reach a certain level of saturation, they cannibalize each other even more than they cannibalize steady suppliers.
The current plan is to quadruple nuclear power in the UK.
While you can turn nuclear up and down a little bit the fuel costs are negligible so it costs the same to generate 80% or 100% of rated output. It's done in France because nuclear makes up so much of their generation capacity they have no other option.
> Giving a preference to intermittent renewables is not a law of nature, but a rule that is irrational and needs to be removed.
I think carbon-free generation options should be considered dispassionately with a focus on minimising cost and reducing CO2 emissions as quickly as possible. But there is path dependence at this point. The wind generation capacity will already have been built out before many more nuclear plants come online. I think this will make the economics of expanding nuclear power generation unattractive because we will already have made the commitments to buy the wind generation and we will instead look for the lowest priced options to fill the gaps.
> Denmark is just now hitting problems with their wind strategy, and of course dependent on being a transit land between large producers and consumers. And currently looking at nuclear. As is Norway. > > One of the reason is that intermittent renewables are pro-cyclical, that is once they reach a certain level of saturation, they cannibalize each other even more than they cannibalize steady suppliers.
The fast decreasing cost of batteries will help smooth out fluctuations in wind generation across a day or two. That should reduce the level of cannibalisation between wind projects substantially, though does not remove the need for backup power for longer periods of little wind.
I suspect the proposed SMR projects in Norway and Denmark will depend on whether anyone is able to get SMR build costs down sufficiently to make them attractive. It certainly makes no sense to ban them outright.
> The current plan is to quadruple nuclear power in the UK.
That was the 2050 target from the last government. In terms of actual commitments the only planned plant after Hinkley C is currently Sizewell C. At the same time 4 of our 5 remaining nuclear plants will be decommissioned by early 2030. I think the target is highly unlikely to be met.
There is a £2.5 billion investment in SMRs (if you can call reactors around a 1/3rd the size of existing nuclear power plants small...) but will they really have reduced costs?
Australia, for instance, powers 40% of its electricity with renewables.
However, electricity makes up ~20% of _total_ energy consumption which means renewables made up 9% of _total_ energy production.
As the electrification of transport, industry, manufacturing, etc proceeds, the demand for electricity will increase (in the case of Australia, we need to 5x our electricity production).
Ironically, legislators are disincentivized from stimulating electrification as getting to 100% renewable electricity production is easier when electricity is only 20% of our energy usage.
If you take as axioms:
1) Countries have major political interest in whether other countries have nuclear reactors
2) Countries are already, at large scale, manipulating discourse across the internet to achieve their political goals
Then of course it follows that any comment thread on a semi-popular or higher site about whether a country should build more nuclear reactors is going to be heavily manipulated by said countries. That's where (most) of the insane people in such threads are probably coming from.
How are we supposed to survive as a civilization with such corrupted channels of communication?
There are countries that have interest of having gas or oil bought from them. It is not clear if they are pro or against other countries going nuclear: on one hand, nuclear will replace part of their market. On the other hand, lobbying to move towards nuclear may impede progress in replacing gas and oil by renewable (a strategy would be to lobby so that the nuclear project starts and then lobby so that the project stagnates and never delivers).
There are countries that have interest in seeing nuclear adopted because they have a market for the ore extraction or waste processing. There are countries that have interest in seeing nuclear not adopted because they have a market around other generations.
Finally, some countries may want to see their neighbors adopt nuclear: the neighbor will pay all the front bills and take all the risk (economical but also PR, or the cost of educating experts, ...), and if they succeed, they will provide import energy very cheap that can fill the gaps the country did not wanted to invest in.
So it is not clear if there is just one stream of lobbying. The reality is probably that every "sides" does somehow contain manipulative discourse from foreign countries.
>... composed of representatives from employers' associations, workers' unions (trade unions) and civil society organisations.
I'm not sure how up they are on technical issues like the rapid progress in batteries and solar and the like.
Hinkley C in the UK was approved in 2016 and probably will be producing in 2031 so 15 years on. (cost ~£40bn). In the last 15 years the cost of battery storage and of solar panels have both fallen about 10x. If that goes on they will be much cheaper but the time nuclear comes online.
Here are some sources of information that helped me understand the two oft-cited nuclear disasters better.
The World Nuclear Energy write up on the Fukushima incident: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec...
Some information on the Chernobyl incident: The infographics show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uJhjqBz5Tk
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec...
A lecture in the MIT Courseware on the incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijst4g5KFN0
This lecture is way more informative where the professor explains how the workers took the system beyond the rated capacity as part of a test.
There have been many lessons learned, and the World Nuclear article linked above shares some of these.
Here is a writeup of the Three Mile Island incident: https://world-nuclear.org/Information-Library/Safety-and-Sec...
One regular complaint is the costs of nuclear energy. This is likely true in the US due to regulations that have not been revised for newer technology, but such high costs are cited around the world.
Likewise, the amount of waste and the danger of the waste is not well understood either, and certainly lots of education is needed here. For e.g., most people do not know that the volume of waste is limited and that the same waste can be reused in reactors of other designs.
I do believe that national ego issues get in the way of fixes. I believe that such ego issues got in the way of honest repairs (Fukushima) and timely action (Chernobyl). Certainly, nuclear inspections are still treated with suspicion and hostility, but in fact full transparency and integrity should be the norm.
Corruption and profit-centric thinking are two other problems that plague the nuclear industry. South Korea has had lots of corruption and shortcuts (https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/22/136020/how-greed...). One of the accusations in India against France was that France licenses outdated nuclear reactor technology despite having newer technology. I am unable to locate a link supporting this accusation.
With thorium reactors and Small Module Reactors, there are many modern solutions to safety.
ThorCon's Thorium Converter Reactor - Lars Jorgensen in Bali https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB1IrzDDI9g
Here is the full training by Thorcon on their reactors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkvEXm-rMW4&list=PLuGiwaUJYE...
We need to stop citing and quoting US-based costs and problems that are linked to outdated US regulations. There are other countries that have more modern regulations and modern technologies.
Where is the fossile fuel being burnt?
There is obviously major ethical issues here. The rich, already developed world- having emitted enormous quantities of CO2 to get there- telling poor, undeveloped people living as subsistence farmers that they can't use any more energy because of all the CO2 already in the atmosphere is a really hard argument to make, locking them into being poor forever while the developed world benefits from all that CO2 consumption. But on the other hand, by skipping right to large scale solar, maybe those inside the circle can do a better job?
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeriepieris_circle
China 50%, India 11%. And that is based on their official numbers so probably a lot more.
https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-consumption-by-count...