1/9 The economic top-institute @DIW_Berlin in Germany brought out a new study “Expansion #nuclear power without technical and economic basis”. diw.de/documents/publ…@CKemfert
A little thread about some unsurprising, but for some maybe remarkable findings.
2/9 Unsurprising is the conclusion that #nuclear has priced itself out of the market. Construction costs of current generation III+ would have to be reduced with 2/3 in order to maintain the global 10% market share in power production. But those costs are still increasing.
3/9 #SMRs of the light-water type would need production units of several thousands (per design!) to break even their disadvantage of scale, and that would need global harmonisation of #nuclear regulation. Dreams, dreams…
4/9 #GenerationIV#nuclear reactors appear far too costly to be able to compete even with already existing design nuclear power stations. They will furthermore not be commercially available before 2040 (if ever).
5/9 Comparing @IPCC_CH report SR1.5 (2018) with AR6 (2022) shows a remarkable move away from the use of #nuclear energy in assessed energy scenario’s towards increased growth of wind, sun and water, with also a remarkable increase of scenario’s reducing or phasing out nuclear.
6/9 DIW describes this move as one that is more strongly orienting on realistic economic and technical developments, especially cost developments of solar energy and system integration.
7/9 Conclusion of @DIW_Berlin: Expansion of #nuclear power is risky and economically unprofitable. The emphasis of the nuclear industry should move to decommissioning and radioactive waste management.
8/9 Policies should be oriented on areas that can be expected to deliver substantial contributions to the energy transition, like #renewable energy sources, storage and other flexibility options. #Nuclear energy does not belong to that.
9/9 Attempts to label #nuclear power (including for #hydrogen production) as “green” or “sustainable” should be resolutely opposed. In the planning of the power sector in Germany and Europe, solutions based on subsidising nuclear (like in 🇫🇷 and 🇵🇱) should be rejected.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/6 The #nuclear lobby in #Brussels#EU continues with its demands for more and more money. Les Entretiens Européen invites: "Nuclear power is a public good in Europe, and its role in terms of climate is no longer contested..."
2/6 Just, nuclear is no public good, it's big business. And contested. Some still believe it has some role to play. But it is nothing but a diversion from #ClimateAction.
"... Its revival is necessary for sustainable development, and to meet the growing demand for electricity..."
3/6 It simply isn't - it's not necessary, it's not sustainable, and there are cheaper, faster delivering and less risky (accidents, waste, proliferation) but clean #RenewableEnergy sources already available.
"... Heavy investment is required to secure its future..."
2/4 With only 3 years hitting 10 new reactors to the grid in the last 30 years and the rest well under that, dreaming of 28 new large reactors from now until 2050, year on year, every year, seems a bit optimistic - even for concerted action.
3/4 Even when extending the lifetime of the entire current ageing fleet (just put the accompanying risk for more Fukushima-like catastrophes aside for a moment), it would require 15 new reactors per year, year on year...
2/12 Eerst de feitelijke fouten in dit artikel. Waterstof is niet de backbone van effectieve klimaatactie. Het is een belangrijke maar dure en kleine niche. Kernenergie versus waterstof is net zo'n onzinnige dichotomie als kernenergie versus kolen.
3/12 Verouderende kerncentrales als Borssele zijn niet veiliger, hebben hooguit andere risico's dan bij de bouw 40+ jaar geleden. Nieuwe generatie III(+)reactoren hebben technisch mogelijk (niet zeker) een lager risico, maar risico is er nog wel en je zit er 60 jaar aan vast.
01/17 THREAD: World Nuclear Association’s Agneta Rising – chief lobbyist for the #nuclear industry – gave wrote her new year’s overview. The industry bases itself on a quick-sand of half-truths and full untruths. world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Viewp… Let’s pick it apart:
02/17 The discussion about whether nuclear should be part of a future energy mix has become more polarised, but because of the disinformation from the side of the industry. Nuclear can *never* be part of a *clean* energy mix, because it is risky and leaves toxic wastes.
03/17 IPPC SR1.5 concluded that nuclear is a political question. Viable non-nuclear pathways exist, which according IPCC AR5 are not more expensive than replacing some wind and solar with nuclear. It also warned for nuclear costs, risks, proliferation and social acceptability.