That was my suggested headline for my latest piece in Crikey, which ran under the sub-editors (blander IMO) choice of “We don’t need a nuclear renaissance.
Being antinuclear is SO boomer ✨it’s now quite a quaint “old nutter” position. Or it’s what happens when an economist tries to do physics.
There’s about a dozen countries with reliable, low carbon electricity thanks in a large degree to nuclear. There’s exactly zero that have achieved this with intermittent sources, even with extraordinary government subsidisation.
Ontario has commenced the build of the extension to Darlington and provided the money and the SMRs in the Province budget. UK currently also building Sizewell in addition to Hinkley. No new plants were announced for several years it is true, but that has changed now the countries getting more serious about climate change. Funding for nuclear in the EU Patrionomy, a significant change.
As you say, I'm out of date. It's 2023 here, and they are still planning preparations for Sizewell. They've done a bit of site preparation at Darlington but no one is providing SMRs because they don't yet exist. Since you are writing from my future, can you tell me what's happened to crypto.
Except what you are saying is wrong. Your Wiki link is out of date. Politics not economics was behind the pause in keeping with a pause in many countries. Ontario is expanding both its large scale plants and is building 3 SMRs to meet rising demand from EVs and economic expansion and to get rid of the last 9% of its grid that still uses fossil fuels.
Finland, Poland, Czech Republic, UK, Netherlands, France, Romania, Slovakia have all announced nuclear expansion plans and Sweden likely too. Most are existing nuclear users.
These are all announcements. If announcements constitute success, nuclear power has done pretty well, notably including cold fusion. But I thought you were asking about actually existing plants.
The French transition from fossil fuels to clean power wa the fastest in history. Compare that to Germany, 20 years into their transition they are nowhere near zero and are unlikely to ever get there.
If as you say nuclear is not the reason France was successful, why hasn’t the German or Danish transition worked? Why has Ontario worked and California failed? The common factor in France and Ontario is of course the use of nuclear energy and the failure in California and Germany due to trying to do the transition without it.
Germany was stupid to shut down nukes before coal, but that hasn't stopped the transition in Europe, despite only one nuclear plant being added in the last 20 years (in Finland)
You seem to have missed "hydro" in the OP. And, while I didn't mention it, the expansion of grids since 2014, along with Rewiring the Nation, mean that a week of rain isn't a problem unless it rains everywhere.
But to focus on our points of agreement, we don't need either coal or nuclear, which was the point of the article.
As we approach 100 per cent renewables, we'll need either some longer-term storage options (pumped hydro for example) or some gas peakers. But we won't need coal.
https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1002543/ontario-breaks-ground-on-world-leading-small-modular-reactor
Unless the tradies are working for nothing Canada is spending money
Well yes. Spending money is one thing, generating electricity is another.
Being antinuclear is SO boomer ✨it’s now quite a quaint “old nutter” position. Or it’s what happens when an economist tries to do physics.
There’s about a dozen countries with reliable, low carbon electricity thanks in a large degree to nuclear. There’s exactly zero that have achieved this with intermittent sources, even with extraordinary government subsidisation.
A twofer. Generation game slurs and pro-nuclear nonsense.
In reality, renewables have surpassed coal and nuclear in many countries, and will soon do so everywhere. That's true whatever your birth cohort
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-renewable-energy-will-surge-past-coal-and-nuclear-by-years-end/
Ontario has commenced the build of the extension to Darlington and provided the money and the SMRs in the Province budget. UK currently also building Sizewell in addition to Hinkley. No new plants were announced for several years it is true, but that has changed now the countries getting more serious about climate change. Funding for nuclear in the EU Patrionomy, a significant change.
As you say, I'm out of date. It's 2023 here, and they are still planning preparations for Sizewell. They've done a bit of site preparation at Darlington but no one is providing SMRs because they don't yet exist. Since you are writing from my future, can you tell me what's happened to crypto.
Except what you are saying is wrong. Your Wiki link is out of date. Politics not economics was behind the pause in keeping with a pause in many countries. Ontario is expanding both its large scale plants and is building 3 SMRs to meet rising demand from EVs and economic expansion and to get rid of the last 9% of its grid that still uses fossil fuels.
Finland, Poland, Czech Republic, UK, Netherlands, France, Romania, Slovakia have all announced nuclear expansion plans and Sweden likely too. Most are existing nuclear users.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/ontario-plans-more-nuclear-reactors-meet-rising-electricity-demand-2023-07-07/
These are all announcements. If announcements constitute success, nuclear power has done pretty well, notably including cold fusion. But I thought you were asking about actually existing plants.
The French transition from fossil fuels to clean power wa the fastest in history. Compare that to Germany, 20 years into their transition they are nowhere near zero and are unlikely to ever get there.
Did you even read the article?
If as you say nuclear is not the reason France was successful, why hasn’t the German or Danish transition worked? Why has Ontario worked and California failed? The common factor in France and Ontario is of course the use of nuclear energy and the failure in California and Germany due to trying to do the transition without it.
Ontario didn't work. Massive cost over-runs and delays. That's why Canada stopped building nukes and CANDU was abandoned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlington_Nuclear_Generating_Station
Germany was stupid to shut down nukes before coal, but that hasn't stopped the transition in Europe, despite only one nuclear plant being added in the last 20 years (in Finland)
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/08/31/a-sign-of-the-times-eu-reliance-on-fossil-fuels-falls-to-record-low-report-reveals
You seem to have missed "hydro" in the OP. And, while I didn't mention it, the expansion of grids since 2014, along with Rewiring the Nation, mean that a week of rain isn't a problem unless it rains everywhere.
But to focus on our points of agreement, we don't need either coal or nuclear, which was the point of the article.
Baseload is a nonsense concept https://johnquiggin.com/2009/07/22/the-myth-of-baseload-power-demand/
As we approach 100 per cent renewables, we'll need either some longer-term storage options (pumped hydro for example) or some gas peakers. But we won't need coal.