Nuclear vs Renewables

In my last post, I looked at how, despite renewable expansion, emissions were still rising. I focussed mainly on coal, but clearly, it’s wider than that: multi-billion fossil fuel investment continues. In this post I will look at what is arguably another big issue- the attempt, to rebrand nuclear as a solution. Certainly, some people in the UK and elsewhere think that there is a case for nuclear as part of a low carbon answer to climate change, although others do not agree. Even leaving aside the safety, security and waste issues, they say it’s too expensive and takes too long to build compared with renewables. That debate continues, but in terms of what’s actually happening on the ground, the battle has arguably been won by renewables – they are expanding very rapidly around the world, leaving nuclear mostly stalled. Even China’s nuclear programme, currently at around 60 GW, is tiny compared with its renewables capacity, which hit 1.82 TW last year and is still expanding fast. While the nuclear industry may mostly have to accept a lesser role globally, as renewables expand to high percentages of overall power, that in fact may be seen by them as a new opportunity- on the argument that nuclear will be needed to back up variable renewables. The latest example seems to be Denmark, famed for its anti-nuclear ‘Atomkraft Nein Danke’ stance, with renewables now supplying over 80% of its power and aiming to get to 100% of all energy by 2050. That will require new grid balancing capacity, the most obvious being storage- with excess renewable output being stored in batteries or converted to hydrogen for use when there is renewable supply lull or a peak in demand. But evidently there is also now government interest in nuclear- and the idea of small modular reactors (SMR). It’s hard to see how this would be viable for occasional backup. Large conventional nuclear plants are expensive to build and inflexible to run, and current designs for SMRs are no better – and trying to make them flexible is likely add even more to the cost. So it seems very odd. The UK is getting 50% of its power from renewables, but is struggling to fund its proposed new nuclear plant at Sizewell: EdF evidently is no longer able to help out- it has enough financial and operational problems with its troubled EPR programme in France. It has also halted its initial SMR programme. The UK however is still keen to promote SMRs, although Westinghouse has pulled out of the race. The basic problem with nuclear technology, old or new, small or large, is cost – renewables like wind and solar are far cheaper, and storage backup is also now getting cheap. The UK does need to get moving on hydrogen storage for the longer term, and also heat storage, which some see as better than heat pumps in some locations, possibly with green AD biogas as a storable energy source. Tidal lagoon power, though still a bit too costly, is also beginning to be talked up again. All of these are arguably a lot more promising for balancing than new nuclear.

Renew Extra 24th May 2025

https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2025/05/more-renewables-or-more-nuclear.html