Perché l’energia nucleare è tornata in voga in Europa e in tutto il mondo
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/emissions-reduction/why-climate-change-and-wars-are-reviving-interest-in-nuclear-energy/89676654
di Ok-Ice2183
Perché l’energia nucleare è tornata in voga in Europa e in tutto il mondo
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/emissions-reduction/why-climate-change-and-wars-are-reviving-interest-in-nuclear-energy/89676654
di Ok-Ice2183
32 commenti
Cuz it gets stuff done.
Well, not really. Extending life time works, but new builts? Very few new projects worldwide.
What country plans on increasing their share of nuclear power in their electricity production? Nuclear power plants cannot keep up with the velocity of electrification.
Because it still better than coal in terms of climate destruction and more reliable than solar and wind. Of course this comes at the cost of having nuclear waste.
Another wishful thinking article about nuclear without addressing any of the real reasons why nuclear has fallen that much behind renewables.
In reality, while there are many announcements, there are few concrete projects that actually come to fruition. This is hardly surprising, as building nuclear power plants consumes vast amounts of taxpayer money and is usually much more expensive than projected. We see this in the UK, Finland, and France.
It therefore makes more sense to invest in renewable energy, also because of the unresolved nuclear waste issue and the risk of accidents.
It’s true that it’s a NU hyped up fad.
Make Corporations Great Again!
Why support a decentralised energysystem, where everyone can participate and save money, has fewest impacts on the climate, which cannot be destroyed by a single missile, when you can have the opposite? Single megacorporations owning everything, tons of subsidies, risk taking by the taxpayer, fuel vom questionable sources?
But it’s not?
Ahhh…. Not Australia….
Extending existing builds is something I dislike. We need new builds. A good 10% maybe even 20% of base load from nuclear and/or reliable(!) hydro is in my view the best to combine with 80% renewables like solar and wind, and a decent battery capacity spillover.
But it takes time to build these things, we need to get going
Here comes the sock puppet army of the nuclear campaigners again…
I dont understand the fawning over nuclear reactors, building the damn things is hideously expensive, takes forever and unless you got fissionable material in the ground you remain dependent on foreign powers.
Let alone the question of where to leave the waste during operation and after decommissioning.
In addition its a wet dream for any wannabe terrorist so the reactor and the waste need constant vigilance to keep safe.
Wouldn’t it be less of a hassle to use coal as a backup and rely on wind and solar + molten salt batteries?
Sure it would generate some waste but nothing is free.
It is not back in vogue. The article is misinformation. Nuclear energy is expensive, un-economical, an environmental disaster. And no, it is not reliable, not safe and not stable:
[https://www.euronews.com/2025/07/02/france-and-switzerland-shut-down-nuclear-power-plants-amid-scorching-heatwave](https://www.euronews.com/2025/07/02/france-and-switzerland-shut-down-nuclear-power-plants-amid-scorching-heatwave)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents)
We need to powah da A.I!!
Cause it is cheap, doesn’t generate greenhouse gas (except for the construction, fueling operation and the mass of people working there) Until we have fusion. Only issue is what do we do with the very long half life waste generated after the use… Granted that fusion might help with theses.
I guess the market will grow more soon with SMRs
>Nuclear post on europe
Germans shitting on it in the comments
a true europe classic
Because it works.
And has a distinct set of advantages and disadvantages, so in a balanced energy generation system they have a place to maximize the advantages and minimize the negatives.
You know considering 2014 was when the climate crisis and the Crimea crisis were topics of discussion about the world and energy security you’d think Europe would think it was a good investment to get off polluting oils from autocracy’s like Saudi Arabia and Russia for our own security and the worlds future
Merkel “no we Europeans will take the cheap cowardly discussion to rely on autocracies for our energy and doom our environment”….. (then they wonder why people hate our current crop of politicians)
Oh, hello Germans who swallowed the long dick load of anti-nuclear lobbying and and here to talk shit.
How’s paying one of the highest per Kw rates in Europe ?
What’s it like being responsible for your current energy crisis that reverberates throughout Europe?
What’s it like to pollute 7 times more than France which is between 60 to 70% nuclear powered?
What’s it like to have your industry shrinking due to your former reliance on cheap Russian gas ?
You know what, actually, don’t answer any of that. Just stay quiet.
The future is nuclear fusion reactors, there are several experimental tokamaks and stellarators that look promising.
There’s definitely scope for it. However, they’re monumentally slow to build: Hinckley Point C commenced construction in 2017 and was scheduled to be complete in 2025, but that has been pushed back to 2031 and potentially much further back.
For that reason, it’s not a feasible option for the rapid decarbonisation that we need to tackle climate change. You could build hundreds off offshore wind turbines in the time it would take to build one nuclear power station.
They’re also incredibly expensive to build. The original budget in 2015 was £18bn, but with inflation and overruns it’s now estimated to cost over £40bn
The cost per unit of electricity is much higher than offshore wind.
AI is straining the grid, wind/solar disappoint. Still even if Europe has a change of heart, new nuclear plants won’t come online in time.
A lot of promises Let’s see how it will Look like in 15 years.
So EU should not have listened to Germany?
Because they finally found a way to build nuclear power plants fast, cheap and with the consent of the local communities as well as having solved the rather long term issue of nuclear waste, while also having the electricity companies to insure those things properly?
Lobbyists do lobbyist things, that’s why.
Turns out that not using one of the cleanest and most reliable sources of electricity is not a good idea
Where is Europe going to buy this new Uranium required for the new plants?
No no, Nuclear bad cuz atoms, (proceeds to choke themselves with coal power plants)
Because they don’t have other options after shooting themself in the foot by cutting Russian gas, got kicked out of Niger and other African countries… Now the German economy is dying and French will follow in few years… So they desperately searching for a solution…
Merkel has been one of the worst disasters that happened to Europe since WW2.