Strategically speaking, Europe lacks the natural resources to build renewable, wind turbines and solar panels have to be imported, most of them from Asia.

Nuclear is still a bit cheaper per Watt and less carbon intensive, as it involves less infrastructure, logistics and batteries overall. It's also somewhat more reliable, as it doesn't depend on sun or wind (the former of which France often lacks).

Also, I am hopeful that nuclear power plant construction delays will only improve in the near future, as Europe rebuilds its expertise in nuclear engineering, which it lost after the past decades of anti-nuclear waves.

Finally, I don't see fossil fuel usage going down much in Germany in the link you gave, if at all. Which is the only thing that matters, ecologically speaking.

▲

Propelloni 7 months ago | parent [-]

> Nuclear is still a bit cheaper per Watt

LCOE [1] of nuclear power in Europe and the USA is roughly thrice that of solar or wind [2]. In China it is about even. If you do not trust the Deutsche Bank report, the World Nuclear Association comes to roughly the same conclusion but assumes a lower discount, thus making nuclear power more attractive. [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity [2] https://www.dbresearch.de/PROD/RPS_DE-PROD/PROD0000000000528... [3] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...

▲

sgt 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

Is this based on cost per Watt without the expenses related to keeping the grid perfectly synchronized or not?

A significant and stable base load is important and it has shown that wind/solar makes it substantially more expensive to keep the grid stabilized, which is of course a no brainer if you don't want a blackout.

▲

Propelloni 7 months ago | parent [-]

> Is this based on cost per Watt without the expenses related to keeping the grid perfectly synchronized or not?

It's the LCOE, you can read what it encompasses in the link I provided.

> A significant and stable base load is important and it has shown that wind/solar makes it substantially more expensive to keep the grid stabilized, which is of course a no brainer if you don't want a blackout.

I assume you mean the utility frequency [1] when you say "base load", because you said "synchronized" and "stabilized". The frequency indeed has to be stable with a rather small margin of tolerance. Today that's mostly a job for gas turbines, though. One can hope that we find ways to store all the surplus regenerative power soon, so that we can retire those, too. Nuclear power plants, in any case, are too slow for that purpose.

Just in case you really meant load, load has no requirement to be stable. The power demands at any time can be met by dispatchable power plants, but utilities like to plan long-term, so they use some averaged load over time to determine a "base load" and buy accordingly on the electricity market. That's prudent business practice, but there is no technical reason to run low-variability power plants because of that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_frequency

	▲	sgt 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for clearing up the terminology. Good point regarding gas turbines.

▲

thrance 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

In France, the most recent report [1] by the Cour des comptes, our official accounting organ, still gives nuclear power as slightly cheaper than solar and wind.

I trust your data, but the situation here is different, most reactors are already built, and "only" need maintenance and fuel replacement.

I still stand by what I said in my previous comment about emissions per watts, etc.

[1] https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/2021-12/20211213...

	▲	natmaka 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		This report is about the cost of production of AMORTIZED nuclear plants (moreover the real cost of France's nuclear fleet of reactor, including public money is a matter of debate). Comparing it to the total cost of new renewable is meaningless.