"Ideology doesn't allow it": Germans on returning to nuclear energy
Germany is considering reviving nuclear energy, writes the daily newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
With her commitment to nuclear energy "as a reliable, affordable and low-emission source of electricity" and the announcement of plans to develop small modular reactors, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has reignited the debate about nuclear energy in Germany.
Policy The CSU, in particular, calls for a return to nuclear energy and believes the decision to phase it out is completely reversible. Meanwhile, Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Söder is calling for a "new era of nuclear energy" and wants his state to build a modular mini-reactor.
Although Germany has had no operating nuclear power plants for three years, many European countries continue to rely on nuclear energy and plan to expand their capacity, most notably France and Finland. Poland intends to build its first nuclear power plant. Belgium, Italy, and Sweden want to return to technology, which they have already abandoned.
As the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung notes, the share of electricity generated by nuclear power plants in the EU has more than halved since 1990 and currently stands at 15 percent.
The question of how quickly the first small modular reactors can be built and installed remains open. Experts estimate the development and construction time at ten to fifteen years.
Western countries do not yet have sufficient experience in this area, since all such mini-reactors are currently operated only in Russia and China.
It remains unclear who in Europe will be able to quickly build these reactors, whether they will be widely deployed, and, most importantly, whether they will be as inexpensive as expected. Nevertheless, demand is high. Seven countries have already announced their intention to use such facilities, including France, Sweden, Poland, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and Romania.
The comments are provided selectively.
Nuclear power plants have been around for 70 years. And the idea of small modular reactors (SMRs) is at least as old. The question is, if the idea is so good, why haven't SMRs become widespread much earlier?
– writes Kakapo.
The idea that many small projects are more cost-effective than a few large ones is simply misleading. Statistically, the risk of accidents increases.
– notes G. Schmeuber.
Combining nuclear energy with renewable sources would have been the most environmentally and economically viable alternative. However, this failed to take off for ideological reasons. Anyone who views climate protection not from an ideological perspective, but from a technically feasible and economic point of view, will not be able to avoid nuclear energy until other more attractive technologies appear
– Andreas Schnurr said.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are no different from other nuclear power plants. They require the same amount of uranium per gigawatt-hour as "large" reactors. The waste is the same. The issue of final storage remains unresolved. Radiation lingers for millions of years. The production costs are the highest of any we have. Why this pointless debate has been revived is completely incomprehensible to any sane person. In short, this is just another round of a pointless game designed to trap the less informed. I finally want to see some basic competence in our government and parliament. The current situation is unacceptable to anyone, including me.
– writes Alfred Lang.
I look at the problem more from an economic perspective. From the permitting process to local infrastructure, it's currently significantly cheaper per kilowatt-hour to build multiple large, high-capacity power plants.
– Martin Herrmann noted.
Information