Continuing nuclear power in EU makes sense as long as safety du to age and cooling can be ensured.
I’m not a nuclear engineer so I don’t know how long these plants will continue.
However for sure we all know that climate change will cause droughts and less water in rivers causing a threat to base load for our whole continent in contrast to renewables.
This is because sure maybe in a radius of 300 km there will be less wind or sun but other regions can compensate for a short time as the probability of local weather is more irregular over the whole continent than the certainty that rivers will carry less and less water the more climate change progresses.
Sure diversification is important but I wouldn’t consider nuclear the main source due to
fatal consequences in unlikely accident
base load threatened by dry climate (see Hungary)
built times longer than remaining time for climate goals
singular point of failure for terrorist attacks, technical or other problems
I am planning the installation of 9KW of solar panels and batteries in my home (the limit in France), but that will not cover all my needs. My home is full electric apart from the wood stove, so I will still need to dip into the grid at times, especially in winter.
I am in an ideal situation too. I have a large flat roof and a garage to house the necessary equipment. The majority of people are not in that position.
Nuclear power the grid so it can be as effective as possible for those that are dependent on it. Give people like me the financial incentives to take some of the load, even if I cannot go completely off grid.
Does the US really have no uranium production? This is just borderline insanity, I would keep and subsidize those mines even if those are not profitable.
Ok, go build a nuclear power plant in 15-30 years for billions of dollars just to still be dependent on foreign uranium resources 🤡
Or build a decentralized, cheaper renewable energy + storage system NOW that also isn’t a single target for sabotage risk 🗿
The fossil fuel industry wants this because they can still sell their crap for the next 30 years. Renewables are too fast and too cheap.
Storage ain’t here yet, and there is uranium in Europe ready to be mined. In my opinion, why not both?
Continuing nuclear power in EU makes sense as long as safety du to age and cooling can be ensured. I’m not a nuclear engineer so I don’t know how long these plants will continue. However for sure we all know that climate change will cause droughts and less water in rivers causing a threat to base load for our whole continent in contrast to renewables. This is because sure maybe in a radius of 300 km there will be less wind or sun but other regions can compensate for a short time as the probability of local weather is more irregular over the whole continent than the certainty that rivers will carry less and less water the more climate change progresses.
Sure diversification is important but I wouldn’t consider nuclear the main source due to
We need both
I am planning the installation of 9KW of solar panels and batteries in my home (the limit in France), but that will not cover all my needs. My home is full electric apart from the wood stove, so I will still need to dip into the grid at times, especially in winter.
I am in an ideal situation too. I have a large flat roof and a garage to house the necessary equipment. The majority of people are not in that position.
Nuclear power the grid so it can be as effective as possible for those that are dependent on it. Give people like me the financial incentives to take some of the load, even if I cannot go completely off grid.
Does the US really have no uranium production? This is just borderline insanity, I would keep and subsidize those mines even if those are not profitable.
Most places happen to not be the US