Angesichts eines neuen Energieschocks fragt sich Europa, ob die Wiederbelebung der Atomkraft die Antwort ist
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g8k8vq8gno
Von Any-Original-6113
Angesichts eines neuen Energieschocks fragt sich Europa, ob die Wiederbelebung der Atomkraft die Antwort ist
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g8k8vq8gno
Von Any-Original-6113
34 Kommentare
Repeat after me : Always has been.
Sincerely, France
With a pit in their stomach, families and industries across Europe are watching gas prices and the cost of filling vehicles with petrol spiral.
While the UK government has told voters pretty much to keep calm and carry on, the European Commission – the EU’s executive arm – has called on people to work more from home and to travel a lot less.
Policymakers warn things could get much worse – depending on what happens next in the Middle East. Yet it feels like only yesterday that Europeans faced a cost-of-living crisis on the back of spiralling energy costs and inflation following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
This means conversations in Europe are turning (again) to the issue of energy independence.
And nuclear energy seems to be back in fashion as part of a home-grown European energy mix – in the UK as well as the EU. But how quick a fix can nuclear be – and how safe and reliable is it really?
At the recent European Nuclear Energy Summit in Paris, European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen, who perhaps forgot she was a minister in the German government when it took the decision to phase out nuclear power plants in 2011, described Europe broadly turning its back on nuclear as a „strategic mistake“.
In 1990, Europe produced around a third of its electricity from nuclear power. That has now fallen to an average of 15%, leaving the continent „completely dependent on expensive and volatile imports“ of fossil fuels, she said, putting Europe at a disadvantage compared with other regions of the world.
Europe imports more than 50% of its energy. Mainly oil and gas.
This leaves the continent vulnerable to unexpected reductions in supply, as was the case with Russia after Europe imposed energy export sanctions, or price increases on the global market, as we are now seeing because of Iran’s strangling of energy exports via the Strait of Hormuz.
Gas prices rise at a similar rate across Europe but the impact on electricity prices varies depending on each country’s energy mix.
In Spain – which has invested heavily in wind and solar power – the average electricity price for the rest of 2026 is forecast at around half of Italy’s, where gas sets the electricity price 90% of the time.
France is Europe’s largest nuclear producer. It generates about 65% of its electricity from nuclear power. Based on future contracts, German electricity prices for next month are five times those of France – an eye-watering contrast.
Germany phased out nuclear power following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. This left the energy-hungry industries that traditionally power the German economy – cars and chemicals – hugely gas-dependent.
This week, Berlin’s top economic research institutes more than halved their growth forecasts for 2026 to a predicted 0.6% of GDP because of global price hikes for gas.
A renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power is palpable in Europe:
Italy is preparing draft laws to repeal its longstanding ban
Belgium seems to be making a complete U-turn after years of reluctance about investing in nuclear energy
Greece, historically cautious because of seismic concerns, has opened a public debate on advanced reactor designs
Sweden reversed a four-decade old decision to abandon nuclear technology
In the UK, Chancellor Rachel Reeves recently announced streamlining regulation to help advance nuclear projects.
„To build national resilience, drive energy security and deliver economic growth, we need nuclear,“ said Reeves.
New polling from YouGov suggests growing support for nuclear energy in Scotland, with the majority of people now backing it as part of the country’s energy supply.
No prizes for guessing that France is the loudest nuclear cheerleader. President Emmanuel Macron is ever eager to point to the industry’s credentials as a low carbon-emitter, potentially helping the EU towards its net zero goals.
He told Europe’s nuclear summit that „nuclear power is key to reconciling both independence, and thus energy sovereignty, with decarbonisation, and thus carbon neutrality“.
The answer is yes, the problem is making it affordable.
The current generation of nuclear are being impacted by endless delays and cost overruns. These are largely being built by French companies, who have had years of experience with nuclear technology.
If they can’t get it right, who can step up and build them at a cost Europe can afford?
This is all fault of the ignorant pupulation that after Chernobyl just got dumbly scared about anything regarding nuclear. I wish for a future where populism is violently persecuted
The FIAT nuke .0 to 1000 in 0.000000001 seconds
no, it’s not.
Always was.
How about continuing to build out renewables, continuing to prepare the grid for it, adding storage and actually pushing EV V2G ahead?
We’ve hade the answer for years, but just don’t move.
As far as nuclear, wake me up when someone can build and operate it in an economically feasible way that doesn’t involve the power company pocketing the profits and leaving the decommissioning and other risks on society.
Yes.
No.
We’ve already started the solar/wind route. We need to double down and go all in scaling up and using massive powerlines to transfer electricity from region to region at a much higher rate.
Not really worth it. To expensive to build. And still costs more then renewables. Especially since you still have to rely on foreign powers to fuel your nuclear power plants and after the current crisis even the last one should realize it is not worth to rely on foreign countries regarding such important stuff.
Nuclear is great but also keep in mind that a significant amount of uranium comes out of the Russian sphere of influence. Not that it has to be bought there, but they have influence on the market. It’s also very expensive and slow to build.
IDK what the author is smoking, but there are already nuclear reactors being built and planned in europe.
Yeah so we can have electricity in 20 years because that would be the average time to build a new NPP. IF we find anyone to spend 15+ billions in advance without making any cent in return for that time. Not going to happen 🤣
Always was, despite the baseless propaganda.
It would take like a lot of years and it’s expensive, just stick to the ones you have and improve them further. Also invest in renewables
EDIT: You can also invest research into Nuclear so it becomes cheaper
Angela Merkel was arguably one of the worst leaders in EU history.
reminde me, why isnt rosatom sanctioned at all again?
Always love the comments from Germans explaining to the French how the energy transition must be done while Germany pollutes 8x more than what France does *on average* per unit of energy produced. While also paying more for it. While also spending more on their energy grid
Find a way to turn delusion into energy and Germans alone will power the entire continent
Nuclear for Baseload Power Stability.
Renewables and Battery Storage for the rest.
That should be the focus going foward, need to get away from fossil fuels as much as possible.
The nuclear revival debate keeps running into the same problem nobody wants to name directly: the lead times make it irrelevant for the current crisis, and the costs make it hard to justify even for the next one.
France just brought Flamanville 3 online, its first new reactor in 25 years. Construction took 17 years, the final bill reached €23.7 billion (seven times the original estimate, per the Cour des Comptes), and the plant needs roughly €138/MWh just to break even at the reactor gate. That is before a single kilowatt-hour reaches anyone’s home. Stack on top of that France’s mandatory grid and transmission fee (TURPE, roughly €60/MWh), excise duty (roughly €30/MWh), and 20% VAT, and a kilowatt-hour produced entirely at Flamanville cost levels lands at roughly €0.38 to €0.40/kWh for a household consumer.
By the way the current French regulated tariff (EDF Tarif Bleu) is~€0.22 to €0.24/kWh
That is roughly 70% above what French consumers pay today, and current prices are already considered high after years of post-Ukraine energy inflation. It would put France at German price levels. And Germany is the most expensive retail electricity market in the EU. Aaaaand we all know how much Germans complain about high electricity costs.
French electricity is not cheap because nuclear is cheap. It is cheap because a fleet of 56 reactors built in the 1970s at a fraction of today’s costs has been fully written off over decades. Flamanville 3 is what it looks like to build one from scratch today.
For context, here is what the same €23.7 billion would buy in renewables at 2024 European CAPEX benchmarks:
• Solar PV (approx. €800/kW): approx. 29600 MW installed, approx. 4100 MW effective after capacity factor
• Onshore wind (approx. €1,350/kW): approx. 17600 MW installed, approx. 5300 MW effective
• Offshore wind (approx. €3,250/kW): approx. 7300 MW installed, approx. 3400 MW effective
• Nuclear, Flamanville: 1650 MW installed, approx. 1240 MW effective
Three to four times more average output for the same investment, deployable in two to four years rather than fifteen.
The legitimate argument for nuclear is not cost or speed. It is dispatchability. Nuclear runs around the clock regardless of weather, pushes gas plants down the merit order and directly dampens the kind of wholesale price spikes Europe is experiencing right now. France and Finland are the clearest proof of that. It is a serious argument.
But „build more nuclear“ as a policy response to an energy supply crisis unfolding in 2026 is not a plan. Any reactor approved today comes online around 2040 at the earliest. The SMR package the European Commission just announced (€330 million) is a sensible hedge, but expecting SMRs at commercial scale before 2035 is optimistic by most independent assessments.
The faster structural answer to import dependency already exists and is getting cheaper every year: more wind, more solar, more storage, and faster permitting. In 2025, wind and solar generated more EU electricity than fossil fuels for the first time. That is the direction of travel. Nuclear can play a role in the long-term mix, but it will not protect Europe from the next shock if the decisions are not taken now.
Sources:
* Flamanville 3 cost and timeline: [Power Mag / Cour des Comptes (Jan. 2025)](https://www.powermag.com/flamanville-3-europes-hard-won-nuclear-milestone/)
* Renewable energy CAPEX and LCOE benchmarks: [IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs 2024](https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2025/Jul/IRENA_TEC_RPGC_in_2024_Summary_2025.pdf)
* TURPE and excise duty breakdown: [DayAheadMarket.eu](https://www.dayaheadmarket.eu/france)
* CRE excise duty rates from Aug. 2025: [Commission de Régulation de l’Énergie](https://www.cre.fr/en/electricity/retail-electricity-market/presentation.html)
Edited, had a display issue with my sources.
I think we should be developing 4g fission. Exploring TWRs and thorium. We used to be ahead of, now our nuclear industry is thoroughly conservative
Yes it is time to restart the green transition to nuclear and phase out fossilfuels
Yes
For cars, it’s all the same whether electricity is produced with nuclear or muscle power. Because most Europeans drive gasoline / diesel cars.
We should also think about how to get Europeans off combustion engine cars. Because these are one the main oil consumers. And electric cars are not the only solution. But also, among other things, developing public transport.
Dooooh!
Yes, it is.
Thanks for coming to my TedEd.
SMR’s will be the future, look at a company called OKLO
Nuclear is fine if you have money laying around, otherwise just build solar lol. Why are so many countries so adverse to renewables. Its insane to me.
So did The Dark Netflix series was made for nothing?
If you have them, keep them running. Building new reactors is economically stupid. The most expensive electricity you’ll ever generate. Improve the grid, improve your means of storage. And buy our Hydro power 😉
We need more renewable and energy storage solution. Not reactors that take decades to build as well as billions of tax payer money while also being more expensive than renewable.
Every normal person defending the actual nuclear debate going on right now has to get their facts and numbers checked
no. not only is it insanely expsensive and would take decades, so it would not be there for this crises, but we would be depended AGAIN on resources from other countries to get our energy running. just take a look outside and see what it did to us to have our energy be depended on oil and gas.
Late is better than never