Why have we seen some countries try to revive nuclear? It is not better than alternatives. Old plants are already too old to operate and new ones are expensive and take time. Is it just an excuse to continue mining and keep dangerous materials?
this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2026
56 points (98.3% liked)
Europe
10193 readers
1654 users here now
News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
plus new NUCLEAR reactors takes billions and 10+years to even be approved and built. RENEWABLE seems much more cheap and readily availably in large quantity. and people might not want a nuclear reactor next to thier city/town or whatever.
and its only for 1 reactor too, you be spending 10s of billions trying to set up a few reactors by that time renewables surpasses nuclear reactors in availiabity.
Many people also don't want windmills next to their city/town or whatever. So what?
Why have we seen some countries try to revive nuclear?
How else does Europe get Plutonium for light nuclear warheads for ICBMs?
Or don't we need more warheads since we don't trust the US while France and England are at risk of being turned into far right Trump supporters?
Why have we seen some countries try to revive nuclear? It is not better than alternatives.
What alternatives? Gas? Coal?
Solar and wind are amazing for reducing the need for other power generation when they're working, but there aren't any realistic alternatives if you want power on a winter night. You need several Frances worth of solar panels to provide power in January, for example.
Yes, there are numerous days when solar can run a country, overproducing power that could be stored. But there are also plenty of days it doesn't, and you need a solution for that too. Would you prefer it to have its waste in barrels, or pumped into the air?
Nuclear is expensive because it's the only energy source that works 24/7 and takes care of all of its waste. Solar is great, but if you include all the batteries needed to run 24/7, that 20k investment for a house becomes a 500k investment. Fossil fuels are only cheap because they don't include the absolutely insane cost of climate change. Wind is great but suffers from the same problem as solar, plus its much more location limited. Hydro and geothermal are amazing, but its orders of magnitude worse than wind for scale and placement.
Leaving us only with nuclear power, which is actually diet cheap once you include the externalities of the other alternatives.
This is a myth. France also does not exist in isolation. It is perfectly possible to get enough energy from solar and wind combined with storage and energy trade
This is a myth
That's a great supported argument. The only argument I made that requires a source is the one about the house. I based that 20k and 500k on my own (dutch) house, which runs net-zero spread over the entire year, but produces less than 1kWh per day in january. I would need aproximately 7 more rooftops to cover my power needs during winter, or about ~400k in lithium cells (plus charge controllers, converters, etc) to store power for half a year. Exluding the emotional cost of my fire insurance laughing in my face when I propose this.
Would you like to explain why this is a myth, or where exactly I'm wrong?
Also, France is currently one of the largest electricity exporters specifically because of super cheap nuclear power. They indeed don't exist in isolation.
solar + wind + batteries + gas
solar + wind + batteries are the cheapest option 97% of the year link
the rest will have to be filled in with gas, which is flexible
So, "the cheapest option" if you live in Los Angeles AND you lie about cost of nuclear power. It would cost 135 euro/mWh in Birmingham, which is comparable to Paris in sun-hours. Call it 120 to be nice. Nuclear power in France costs 70 euros/mWh
And those French nuclear plants are all running at 70%, this solar solution would be fully capped out.
Nuclear power in France costs 70 euros/mWh
Yea*, because the French state as the sole owner of EDF told them so. And is providing them with a multitude of subsidies for their activities. Hence, the true costs of nuclear power are hidden with cross-subsidisation.
*Rather, the price can very well exceed 70β¬, but is then taxed more
From what I can find, with my limited french skills, EDF isn't getting much in the way of subsidies. The 70 euro soft-ceiling was a massive raise to fund new reactors, it used be ~40 euro's for 25% of power and they ran fine on that.
The 70 euro soft-ceiling was a massive raise to fund new reactors, it used be ~40 euroβs for 25% of power and they ran fine on that.
They didn't run fine on that at all. The blanket 45β¬ cap ensured very cheap electricity in France, but also led to EDF being indebted by approx 65 billion β¬ in 2022.
That's when the French state decided to fully step in and increased their share in the company from 80ish to 100% for another 10 billion β¬ taxpayers money/national debt. I'd call that a subsidy.
That also means that the debt of EDF is now fully covered by the French state, giving the company more leeway despite being so indebted. That also qualifies as a subsidy.
Further, the planned new EPR2 reactors will include a clause that will guarantee EDF a minimum price. Should prices fall below that, the difference is covered by the French state. That could be a subsidy.
Also, the French state will provide favourable loans and guarantees for the construction of these reactors, giving that EDF themselves don't have the funds to tackle this huge investment. That's a clear subsidy.
Nuclear ... takes care of all of its waste
That could not be further from the truth.
There are temporary solutions for the waste at most.
Tell me you don't understand waste handling without saying you don't understand waste handling. There are "temporary" solutions for ALL waste ever.
Nuclear waste is such a tiny little problem, that stacking every spent fuel rod ever, inside it's storage cask, in one pile wouldn't even fill a decent soccer stadium. If you just looked at the fuel itself, the same waste wouldn't even reach your knees. If you powered your entire life with nuclear power (and I mean transportation, manufacturing, heating, lighting, etc) with nuclear power, the resulting spent nuclear fuel for your entire family would be slightly less than a 1-inch cube.
I can't stress enough how nuclear waste is a total non-issue that was invented by the fossil fuel industry and misguided idiots who understand neither basic physics or (much less basic) general waste handling.
Without sinking to your level I will limit myself to say:
I am not the idiot here.
I wasn't refering to you personally.
I was refering mostly to the anti-nuclear crusaders from the 70's and 80's who were so anti-war, they figured "Nuclear bomb bad, so nuclear bad", and decided that civilian powerplants were building bombs without any evidence (or even basic understanding) and thus everything related to nuclear power was the devil and needed to stop.
Of course, if you do believe that or their propaganda, I actually was talking to you. The maths aren't hard though, you can do them yourself. The nuclear industry is incredibly transparent and you can google almost anything. That, of course, makes it very prone to lies and deliberate misinterpretation, for example when people say there are huge amount of nuclear waste! (which is sort-of-true, but the overwhelmingly vast majority of it is low-level).
You speak of lies and misinterpration and yet you say waste is a non-issue. And even low-level radiation waste (which is a lot of material if you tear down the whole plant at some point) has to be dealt with. Thats expensive and that's part of the cost of nuclear energy. Even if the operators will try to push that to the taxpayer.
But yes, they are transparent. So much so, that even the operators publish lists of reasons about why they don't want to build new plants or continue to run the existing ones:
How is it a problem if something is expensive and takes time if over its life cycle it warrants the costs? Such a short-sighted way of thinking.
Sure, give me a couple Gigawatt in 10 + (random number of delays here) years at guaranteed prices subsidized by the government which due to rampant overflow of costs caused by said delays kill any resemblances of cost-effectiveness for the public.
Or continue adding 6 nuclear power plants worth of solar per year?
Solarpower installed in 2023 equals 6 nuclear power plants
Net extension of solar power in Germany (in Megawatt peak)
Solarpower installed in 2023 equals 6 nuclear power plants
You can't compare wattpeak numbers with 24/7 all-year generation capacity... That's like saying I should skydive to work because I'd get there 10 times faster faster than by riding a bike.
Because nuclear powerplants operate 24/7/52. Looking at you, France! /s
But indeed, that's why we need to add more. In 2024 and 2025 even more nuclear power plant equivalents were added.
So even if those six times peak power translate only to one time of power average over the whole year: Tell me why I should wait decades for a single power plants worth of capacity, when I can add an equivalent amount every year that's producing cheaper electricity. And most oft all, I don't have to care about hazardous waste disposal for centuries to come.
Tell me why I should wait decades for a single power plants worth of capacity
It's more like "A decade", and i'll explain, because it's actually much less nice than these infographics show.
So, doing the maths for you: 1 Wp ~ 0.85 kWh over a year. So 10 gWp ~ 8.5 gWh per year. But they only produce about 3% of that in winter, so about 255mWh in januari or december. That boils down to about 1/8th of a nuclear reactor. So, in reality it takes it takes at least 8 years to match one nuclear reactors, assuming you like keeping the lights on during winter.
But it gets worse, because they produce that power over about 8 hours (being generous) and don't do anything during the other 16. So on top of literally an entire nation's worth of solar panel growth you need to also STORE that power for at least 16 hours. Thankfully, Germany also added about 7.3 gWh in 2025, which is enough to cover that with (some) room to spare.
You could, of course, build two reactors at the same though. You can't really double a country's solar growth. And nuclear plants have MUCH longer lifespans than solar panels and especially batteries.
And most oft all, I donβt have to care about hazardous waste disposal for centuries to come.
Tell me, how much nuclear waste is there actually? Like, take a guess how much waste that takes centuries is actually produced per, I dunno, human-lifetime-of-power.
So, in reality it takes it takes at least 8 years to match one nuclear reactors, assuming you like keeping the lights on during winter.
One nuclear reactor every eight years? Still better than any current reactor project to date. Where is your argument?
So on top of literally an entire nation's worth of solar panel growth you need to also STORE that power for at least 16 hours
I mean, building a nuclear power plant where none operates at the moment (Germany) would also be an entire nation's worth of nuclear growth. What sort of argument is that supposed to be. Add solar or add nuclear, duh?
As for the storage: companies are even building long term battery storages without subsidies because it's worth it on an economical scale to buy the overproduction during peak hours. Show me a nuclear project without subsidies.
And nuclear plants have MUCH longer lifespans
Sure, but over these lifespans maintenance and eventually disposal is a massive cost factor which is one of the reason the overall cost calculation is so negative and requires massive subsidies.
Tell me, how much nuclear waste is there actually?
Too much, because at least here in Germany, nobody wants to store it permanently. So better don't produce any waste at all. It's funny that this argument "It's so little waste" always comes up but completely fails the reality check.
It will never warrant the costs though. Renewable energy will always be cheaper.
At times of peak production yes, but it's an apples to oranges comparison because solar and wind do not produce 24/7. They therefore either need grid-scale storage, which isn't accounted into their costs because it doesn't currently even exist at the necessary scale, or supplementary load-following base generation. Nuclear is the cleanest option by far for the latter.
In political unstable times, a controversial project taking time gives more opportunity for opposition to delay or cancel the project. It is not my thinking that is short-sighted.
It literally is. You just described how you are only thinking of the immediate short term.
France is still quite dependent on nuclear power and I'd be surprised if getting rid of it wouldn't be very expensive and difficult for them despite the relative attractiveness of solar power when starting from scratch.
France also has some of the cheapest power in the world, at the lowest CO2 output, specifically BECAUSE they run a high percentage of nuclear.
Because fossil fuel companies are lobbying for it. Renewables are cheap and quick to set up, every single solar panel immediately lowers the demand for oil/gas/coal a tiny bit.
Nuclear energy on the other hand takes ages to set up and is far more expensive per kWh than renewables. Every single euro spent on nuclear is one euro taken away from renewables.
Oh, and in countries with nuclear weapons programmes, nuclear energy is a way to stealthily increase the military budget.
False.
Renewable is better for fossil fuels company, as of now solar and wind require high subsidies for fossil fuel power plant to operate. You cannot go 100% renewable as the sun does not produce at night and sometimes there is no wind. You can go 100% nuclear instead, as nuclear works all the time and can be adjusted with demand.
This is changing rapidly, as battery technology improves and cost goes down, but we are not still there yet. Nuclear cost goes down as you build more nuclear. China is on the forefront of renewable energy but also builds the most nuclear power plant in the world for very cheap.
France will need to keep the know-how and improve the technology if they want to keep up with aging power plants.
To abandon nuclear in favor of renewable means building more batteries then we can produce in a cost effective way. France nuclear stabilize the European grid. Without it energy would cost much more.
Not a mystery that country with low energy price in Europe have nuclear and country with high energy price lack nuclear.
You just do not need to go 100% renewable immediately. As per the pareto principle: 80% of the result can be achieved with 20% of the effort.
Put up enough renewables NOW to achieve 80% green, decentralized energy. But since we are still very far off from that result, there is no need to waste money for nuclear power plants. We don't even have enough renewables to result in negative energy prices, so there is no need for batteries just yet. Guess what happens the moment energy prices do become negative for large parts of the year:
- Companies will invest into battery storage to store and later sell this energy.
- Conventional power plants cannot operate for half the year or longer.
- Energy consumption by companies and households will start to adher to the energy production with the proliferation of smart energy grids.
Nuclear cannot be adjusted to demand at all by the way. It is extremely inflexible and does not handly varying demand well. Varying demand that will occur in the coming decades due to smart energy grids becoming a thing.
You also haven't explained why the only countries who build nuclear in significant numbers also possess nuclear weapons. Nobody builds nuclear power plants for the climate.
As long as we aren't at regular negative energy prices, it is more cost effective and better for the climate to invest into renewables. Once we are there, nuclear power plants are economically unviable due to their aforementioned inflexibility.
The only economical stopgap until we are fully renewable will be flexible emergency gas power plants that run for a couple of days/weeks per year at most. And due to the fact they are an order of magnitude cheaper than nuclear, you have vastly more resources for expanding battery storage and renewables.
With current and near future technology, it is cheaper to have that 20% being nuclear and the rest renewable and battery than to have only renewable and batteries. Not only cheaper, but also more environmentally friendly. Using fossil fuel is not really an alternative.
Nuclear can do grid load following (not peak due to thermal inertia but you will have batteries for that): nuclear power plant in France are required to be able to cycle to 30% power when needed.
If the target is to get to 80% renewable + batteries and 20% nuclear, then why do you think nuclear investments is removing money from renewable? Those are complementary technologies and we need both. By sabotaging nuclear we are just making it more expensive forcing polluting fossil fuels as the only alternative. Fighting nuclear is just delaying decarbonization.
Nuclear is the only technology that enabled a decarbonized electric grid in countries without natural low carbon source of energy such as hydroelectric.
The fact that solar is cheaper is inconsequential if you produce electricity when it is not needed and you do not when it is needed.
Nuclear costs more to produce, but lower the prices due to how the electricity market works.