Continuing nuclear power in EU makes sense as long as safety du to age and cooling can be ensured.
I’m not a nuclear engineer so I don’t know how long these plants will continue.
However for sure we all know that climate change will cause droughts and less water in rivers causing a threat to base load for our whole continent in contrast to renewables.
This is because sure maybe in a radius of 300 km there will be less wind or sun but other regions can compensate for a short time as the probability of local weather is more irregular over the whole continent than the certainty that rivers will carry less and less water the more climate change progresses.
Sure diversification is important but I wouldn’t consider nuclear the main source due to
fatal consequences in unlikely accident
base load threatened by dry climate (see Hungary)
built times longer than remaining time for climate goals
singular point of failure for terrorist attacks, technical or other problems
Storage ain’t here yet, and there is uranium in Europe ready to be mined. In my opinion, why not both?
Continuing nuclear power in EU makes sense as long as safety du to age and cooling can be ensured. I’m not a nuclear engineer so I don’t know how long these plants will continue. However for sure we all know that climate change will cause droughts and less water in rivers causing a threat to base load for our whole continent in contrast to renewables. This is because sure maybe in a radius of 300 km there will be less wind or sun but other regions can compensate for a short time as the probability of local weather is more irregular over the whole continent than the certainty that rivers will carry less and less water the more climate change progresses.
Sure diversification is important but I wouldn’t consider nuclear the main source due to