I read the papers, and don't see anyone applying for permission to build replacements for the nuclear plants that are being decomissioned. Why not?
My guess is that the taxpayers won't insure nuclear generation against accidents/cleanup anymore. (There are also rules that would need to be changed, but those rules have been changed before.) It might be possible to get permission to build nuclear plant if the operator has liability insurance and a safe way to store the waste, but not without that.
And AFAICT, if the investors/operators need to pay for insurance and waste disposal, then nuclear power is too expensive compared to either building spare wind/sun capacity, learning to limit electricity use, or a combination.
I'd be happy to learn better. But these "thinktank" pieces aren't thoughtful. "X has disadvantages or problems, therefore we must do Y" is just pretense. What Y in the real world comes without problems or disadvantages?
There is nuclear next door in France. Just use that as baseload. Also you could build a bigger interconnect to Norway and dump excess power in pumped storage. Many of the problems with energy in Europe are to do with insufficient capacity in international connections. Add interconnects to the east and you can sell excess wind and solar to Poland, Ukraine, and Russia, etc. Improve the connections to Spain and you can buy Spanish solar in the early evening when your own has stopped producing.
Above all: stop trying to solve each country's problems alone, stop thinking that borders between countries are a problem.
I read the papers, and don't see anyone applying for permission to build replacements for the nuclear plants that are being decomissioned. Why not?
My guess is that the taxpayers won't insure nuclear generation against accidents/cleanup anymore. (There are also rules that would need to be changed, but those rules have been changed before.) It might be possible to get permission to build nuclear plant if the operator has liability insurance and a safe way to store the waste, but not without that.
And AFAICT, if the investors/operators need to pay for insurance and waste disposal, then nuclear power is too expensive compared to either building spare wind/sun capacity, learning to limit electricity use, or a combination.
I'd be happy to learn better. But these "thinktank" pieces aren't thoughtful. "X has disadvantages or problems, therefore we must do Y" is just pretense. What Y in the real world comes without problems or disadvantages?