Why fans of nuclear are a problem today
Why fans of nuclear are a problem today
... not because they will succeed, but because they will fail
This is my second instalment on the current challenges to renewables.
The first one was here:
Nuclear energy has been great. In many places, it has produced relatively cheap electricity and (although we did not care about that when it was built) it is largely carbon-free. It still works, but it is simply no longer competitive against available alternatives, and it is going to be increasingly difficult to integrate in a system that is inexorably dominated by solar energy during the day and other renewables. (see for instance this recent academic study). In any case, it is not financeable, and given the large amounts required for each plant, they will struggle to get built, even with large-scale state support.
If a few nuclear plants could easily be built on budget and on time in a given system, it would not be an issue, but the problem is that (i) a lot of the energy of its proponents is directed at maligning renewable energy, presenting it as unserious and insufficient (arguments of the “you can’t do vital surgery if there’s no wind” type which ignore how grids work), and (ii) more importantly, nuclear swallows an incredible volume of political capital that could better be used for other purposes, like energy efficiency, upgrading the grid or reducing fossil fuel use outside the electricity sector.
Politicians like these very large, multi-billion-euro projects that seem to solve an issue in one go, and can be forcefully and visibly decided by a handful of large-ego persons like themselves. They don’t understand (or hate) the very decentralized and uncontrollable nature of renewable energy systems, that require complex rules and don’t give them the same publicisable impact on things. Nuclear provides a concentrated nexus of jobs, TV opportunities, and VIP meetings with big stakes. So they are easily convinced by proponents that this is what is needed.
And thus we get endlessly repeating “decisions” to build new nuclear plants, to be executed over the next 20 or 40 years, and which increasingly resemble fusion energy - always 20 years away. This is because the underlying arithmetic unfortunately no longer works, and nobody is actually willing to sink the billions, or pay the inflated tariffs, that are required to get the plants of the ground - and that’s before delays and cost overruns hit (and obviously nobody sane will agree to be responsible for these in advance).
If nuclear made sense, Microsoft or Amazon or Rio Tinto would finance the construction of a few plants to feed their ever growing appetite for reliable carbon-free energy… In reality, despite all the high-powered attention, ridiculously few new nuclear plants are being built compared to new renewables, even in China. Nuclear is at best irrelevant and at worst a distraction…
This would be harmless if it did not occupy the limited time that senior politicians have to spend on the topic of energy, and get them to spend their political capital on these projects that end up going nowhere. It also means that they don’t understand what is actually happening in the energy sector in the meantime, and don’t work on the new policies that are needed to make sure that ongoing (unstoppable) transition to renewables is done more smartly and efficiently.
Nuclear proponents do understand the energy system a bit better, and they certainly see that renewables are eating their lunch (typified by the switch in discourse, beyond the “it’s ugly” and ‘what do you do when there’s no wind” arguments, from “it’s too small to matter” to “it cannot do 100% on its own”) and thus they need to attack and criticise renewables to make it appear that nuclear is still necessary or relevant.
In that - continuing to denigrate renewables, and capturing too much political attention, nuclear proponents achieve only one thing - slowing down the transition to renewables, and making it more expensive than it could be because regulatory changes are not made. They have effectively become the useful idiots of the fossil fuels industry which they still occasionally claim to fight.
And, to conclude, a fun fact that seems ignored by most: France has lost more annual kWh from nuclear than Germany since 2011, which closed its plants. Maybe the blame for weakening the nuclear case should go to France rather than Germany?
(Source: David Toke)
You make some good points, particularly regarding political capital as a limited resource. I would contend that by denigrating pro-nuclear advocates yourself, referring to them as “useful idiots,” you undermine what I gather is the thesis of your article: that anti-renewable rhetoric from pro-nukes and its political implications harm the common cause of decarbonization. Was it not environmentalist and anti-nuclear sentiment that effectively castrated the industry in the first place, leading us to the excessive dependence on fossil fuels we currently find ourselves with? The only proper anti-stance to have is anti-fossil fuels, anything else is itself a waste of energy and political capital and plays directly into the hands of fossil fuel interests.
While it's true that large nuclear projects can attract political attention because of their economic impact and potential job creation, dismissing this focus as merely catering to egos ignores the legitimate concerns policymakers have about energy security and reliability. Nuclear power offers long-term, stable energy generation, which is crucial for maintaining grid reliability, especially in regions that cannot depend solely on intermittent renewables without massive investments in energy storage and grid upgrades. Furthermore, the notion that nuclear distracts from the growth of renewables overlooks the reality that energy transitions are complex and require balancing multiple priorities, including decarbonization, energy affordability, and security. Political attention on nuclear energy isn't inherently at odds with promoting renewables; in fact, integrating both into a cohesive energy strategy allows for a more resilient and flexible grid. By framing nuclear energy as merely a political spectacle, this story underestimates the strategic importance of having diverse energy sources and presents a black and white narrative.