There are 2 problems with small nuclear power plants. One feasible, one not.
1. they have to be much cheaper to build than the old large ones, as that is the main criterion. There are no actual construction figures yet, so it's all speculation.
It could happen, it's a question of political will and innovation.
But:
2. like all nuclear power plants, these must also be run so that the electricity produced is as cheap as possible (logically, acquisition costs + maintenance + other costs divided by the electricity produced = electricity costs)
However, as more and more countries have higher shares of renewables, which fluctuate greatly, they need balancing power generators) If you use nuclear in this way (no one does) it becomes extremely expensive. If it is not used in this way, it does not completely cover dark phases, but simply increases electricity production throughout... Which also leads to even more negative prices at other times of the year.
For this reason, the capacity utilization of French nuclear reactors has been falling for years, it was now at 64% (again: the higher, the more electricity you can offset the acquisition costs against)
From a German perspective:
Even if we have to import electricity from other European countries in 4 weeks of the year, if we only rely on wind and solar, this is the most sensible alternative for the economy as a whole. Spain and Italy will also come to this conclusion at some point, as the sunny days are much more frequent there. France has made its energy policy decision.
Many countries are now launching new nuclear projects thanks to good lobbying and the bogus justification "we always need cheap electricity".
As a nuclear power producer in the middle of Europe, France could provide this security on its own (apart from Eastern Europe), which is how the European electricity trade works anyway. In addition, storage facilities are booming and will compensate for minor fluctuations.
Building nuclear power plants for 3 weeks of calm a year is economically incredibly stupid and is based on a shitty national ideology.
In Europe, the greenest and then the cheapest electricity is always used. If we build nuclear reactors now, they must be given priority, otherwise they would be too expensive to ever be used.
Since they are not coal-fired power plants, it's not really the end of the world, but it's a waste of money to the point of no return.
(I won't even go into nuclear waste and planning time now).
1. they have to be much cheaper to build than the old large ones, as that is the main criterion. There are no actual construction figures yet, so it's all speculation.
It could happen, it's a question of political will and innovation.
But:
2. like all nuclear power plants, these must also be run so that the electricity produced is as cheap as possible (logically, acquisition costs + maintenance + other costs divided by the electricity produced = electricity costs)
However, as more and more countries have higher shares of renewables, which fluctuate greatly, they need balancing power generators) If you use nuclear in this way (no one does) it becomes extremely expensive. If it is not used in this way, it does not completely cover dark phases, but simply increases electricity production throughout... Which also leads to even more negative prices at other times of the year.
For this reason, the capacity utilization of French nuclear reactors has been falling for years, it was now at 64% (again: the higher, the more electricity you can offset the acquisition costs against)
From a German perspective:
Even if we have to import electricity from other European countries in 4 weeks of the year, if we only rely on wind and solar, this is the most sensible alternative for the economy as a whole. Spain and Italy will also come to this conclusion at some point, as the sunny days are much more frequent there. France has made its energy policy decision.
Many countries are now launching new nuclear projects thanks to good lobbying and the bogus justification "we always need cheap electricity".
As a nuclear power producer in the middle of Europe, France could provide this security on its own (apart from Eastern Europe), which is how the European electricity trade works anyway. In addition, storage facilities are booming and will compensate for minor fluctuations.
Building nuclear power plants for 3 weeks of calm a year is economically incredibly stupid and is based on a shitty national ideology.
In Europe, the greenest and then the cheapest electricity is always used. If we build nuclear reactors now, they must be given priority, otherwise they would be too expensive to ever be used.
Since they are not coal-fired power plants, it's not really the end of the world, but it's a waste of money to the point of no return.
(I won't even go into nuclear waste and planning time now).
•
66
•@leveragegrinding Next-generation SMRs are still a prerequisite for defense drive technology in particular.
••