With the discussion around nuclear energy becoming polarised and ideological, it’s essential to return to the data and facts – and these show that investing in nuclear will not cut emissions within the next decade.
From a cost perspective, electricity production from new nuclear power plants is substantially more expensive than any renewable energy source, except for some rooftop solar, according to a scientific data evaluation by Lazard, an investment bank. Nuclear power costs more than utility-scale solar or wind, even when these are combined with storage.
For this reason, there are currently no purely commercial nuclear projects being developed anywhere in the world: new projects are either subsidised by their governments or linked to military initiatives.
EU member states considering new nuclear plants should carefully calculate the total costs, as Lazard’s figures do not include the decommissioning of plants or the long-term storage of radioactive waste, let alone meeting the costs associated with potential accidents.
Nuclear plants also tend to be less reliable in practice than in theory. Globally, the average downtime for a nuclear plant is four months per year, due to factors including planned maintenance, fuel replenishment, unavailability of parts or personnel, or insufficient river cooling water in times of climate crisis.
Over-reliance on nuclear energy presents risks to Europe’s security of supply, as evidenced by the impact of France’s nuclear crisis in 2022, which affected more than 11 per cent of the EU’s electricity production capacity. Combined with the gas crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that same year, this resulted in a sharp rise in energy prices.
Russia’s invasion also triggered a movement to decrease dependency on energy imports from autocratic and/or potentially hostile countries. While significant action has been taken to switch to alternative suppliers for oil and gas, no such movement has emerged away from Russia as a provider of uranium and nuclear technology.
For existing reactors, the issue of attrition must be considered. Components constructed half a century ago and in use for more than 30 years are susceptible to stress; any country operating old nuclear plants should recognise the increasing safety risks and take appropriate action.
Decommissioning and waste management should not be overlooked. Outside of Finland, no final repository will be available in the near future. Dangerous radioactive material – a health and environmental hazard, and a potential treasure chest for any terrorist – must be stored and protected responsibly.
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), meanwhile, exist only in the realm of imagination. Different concepts are being researched by leading nuclear scientists, but there are very few complete operational designs available, and these are unlikely to be ready before 2030. According to a study by BASE, Germany’s nuclear waste agency, the anticipated lower construction costs will only materialise if several thousand plants of the same design are built.
New large reactors such as Olkiluoto in Finland, Flamanville in France, or Hinkley Point in the UK have taken more than a decade to construct, and their costs have overrun by a factor of at least three.
Decentralised renewables offer a faster, cheaper and more reliable path to becoming climate neutral.
This op-ed is part of a pro/con series. Read the other side here.