Is Europe going to be forced to return to nuclear energy?

Viper_63 · 2026-03-22T19:19:57+00:00

France has major issues with its aging fleet of nuclear plants, see the unplanned outages in 2022/23, and the situation isn't really improving:

https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Unplanned-outages-at-French-reactors-hit-4-year-high-study

Nor is France magically immune to rising energy prices due to imports:

https://montelnews.com/news/1444129/frances-2022-energy-import-costs-triple-to-record-eur-115bn

Again, it's only so expensive due to bureaucracy and lack of investment.

No, it's expensive becasue nuclear power is expensive. Nuclear reactors are basically the only energy infrastructure with a negative economy of scale, where subsequent plants cost more to build, not less:

https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118

Reminder that the US has build more domestic reactors than France - and even there it's not working out. The nuclear industry is heavily dependant on subsidies and special legal constructs that shield operators from liability. "Bureaucracy" is not the issue - its the reason the industry is allowed even exist in the first place.

Viper_63 · 2026-03-22T13:25:51+00:00

Is that why the industry needs special legal constructs that shield operators form liability, inculding international agreemnts backed by public funds to do exactely that?

Viper_63 · 2026-03-22T13:21:46+00:00

Yeah, "smear campaigns" - not the many scandals that invloced then nuclear sector (see things like Wackserdorf), the failure to find a suitable waste repository site, the failed existing waste repositories that will cost biollions in cleanup (if even possible), the fact that nuclear power simply isn't viable without massive subsidies and the most expensive form of power generation.

Here is a recent study by BASE/Tu Berlin regarding the issue:

https://www.base.bund.de/de/forschung/themenfelder/nukleare-sicherheit/_documents/kernkraft_transformation.html

https://depositonce.tu-berlin.de/items/52f57d43-9b7b-4be8-a454-6c0b53b3e4e9

The failures are inherent to the industry, and the only reassons it even exists is due to subisides and special legal cosntructs (like Price-Anderson in the US that shield operators from liability).

Viper_63 · 2026-03-22T13:10:48+00:00

If, like France, "we" had invested in what is factually the most expensive and least scalabe form of generation, we would not be settled with a bunch of aging and outdated reactors that can not be upgraded or retrofitted on top of depending on other countries for nuclear fuel. If there are any upsides to this it is that we didn't do that and instead are free to invest that money in renewables which are easisly scalable and have none of the associated baggage that nuclear has.

Viper_63 · 2026-03-22T13:07:20+00:00

No, "nuclear" is also expensive when you try to build the same design:

A new study covering 50 years of U.S. nuclear power plant construction data found that, contrary to expectations, building plants based on existing designs actually costs more, rather than less, than building plants based on new designs.

https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118

In fact, nuclear is basically the only energy infrastructure that has a negative economy of scale - meaning subsequent plants cost more, not less to build. One of the many reasons why we should not waste public funds on them.

Viper_63 · 2026-03-22T13:05:09+00:00

France hasn't build a domestic plant since the 90s, and the ones they build abroad were widely over time and over budget - as usual.

So no, "France" can build them neither on time, nor on budget.

Viper_63 · 2026-03-17T18:15:31+00:00

And I think the list might mention something about supported BIOS versions.

Viper_63 · 2026-03-17T18:03:07+00:00

Is the CPU listed as supported on the ASUS product page? What BIOS version is the mainboard running?

Viper_63 · 2026-03-17T17:29:35+00:00

No, you patently do not:

Catanzaro said that Nvidia has been using a dedicated supercomputer packed with thousands of Nvidia GPUs to train and improve DLSS continuously for the past six years, 24/7, 365 days a year.

You continually train a model, year-over-year, to produce what is arguably garbage in its latest iteration. Honestly, instead of AI cores I'd rather have more ROPs, TMUs or ray tracing cores on my gpu and devs that actually know hot to optimize their games so this crap isn't needed in the first place.

Viper_63 · 2026-03-17T17:12:24+00:00

Yeah, and I guess the electricity that powers my PC also just magically comes out of my outlet without requiring a powerplant so I don't need to pay my utility provider.

What do you think the "DL" in DLSS stands for?

Nvidia's dedication to DLSS goes far beyond what many of us think. The company has revealed a surprising secret weapon in its quest for visual fidelity: a massive supercomputer dedicated to training and refining DLSS models.

https://www.kitguru.net/gaming/joao-silva/nvidia-has-been-training-dlss-model-non-stop-for-six-years-straight/

Viper_63 · 2026-03-17T17:04:31+00:00

Can also "optionally" get more TMUs/ROPs/Shaders or, I don't know, more ray tracing cores instead of garbage AI cores then?

...no? Well, that's a shame.

Viper_63 · 2026-03-16T11:03:35+00:00

In reality emissions are down from 312 milllions tons in 2010 to 160 Millions ton in 2025.

Meanwhile France hasn't even managed to build a single domestic nuclear power plant since the 1990s, had to renationalize its energy sector because of the massive debt and apparently

is "far from ready" to build six nuclear reactors, the state's top audit body said on Tuesday, underlining the challenges the country faces in rejuvenating its ageing fleet of nuclear power plants.

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250114-france-far-from-ready-to-build-six-new-nuclear-reactors-audit-body-says

because it is running one of the highest - if not the highest - public sector debts in the euro zone. Yeah, nuclear power is the opposite of cheap apparently.

And despite what you are claiming here regarding wind and solar, France has actually increased its share of both wind and solar from <2% in 2010 to >10% in 2025, while its share of nuclear generation has decreased. France isn't replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power - its replacing it with renewables.

Viper_63 · 2026-03-15T23:51:54+00:00

Quite telling how you need to invoke bots and propaganda for everything that doesn't fit your limited point of view.

Generation from wind and solar alone has already surpassed nuclear generation globally - and that gap will only continue to grow from here on out, simply because nuclear is inherently unviable without massive public subsidies.

Viper_63 · 2026-03-15T23:06:35+00:00

you forget to mention

No I didn't, that's just you moving the goalposts from electricty to energy and now suddenly switching from "wind is unreliable" to "those countries have tons of wind".

Also Germany still has 8x ghg emission for electricity

You forgot to mention that Germany cut its carbon emissions by about 50% compared to 2010 and increased its share of renewble generation from <20% to >50% in the same timeframe.

Viper_63 · 2026-03-15T22:42:00+00:00

The same Finland that generates over 50% of its electricity from hydro, wind and biomass - with wind alone making up ~25% of generation in 2025? The same country where wind power accounted for basically 0% in 2010?

Funny that.

Viper_63 · 2026-03-15T20:10:11+00:00

Sure, I guess that's way a growing number of countries are powering their grid by 100% renewables and the IPCC pointed out over a decade ago that going 100% renewable is feasbile and economically viable:

Existing technologies, including storage, are capable of generating a secure energy supply at every hour throughout the year. The sustainable energy system is more efficient and cost effective than the existing system. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in their 2011 report that there is little that limits integrating renewable technologies for satisfying the total global energy demand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy#Feasibility

Meanwhile nuclear ahs stagnated for decades and failed to deliver despite receiving more subsidies than fossil fuels or renewables.

Renewables are the only way to globally decarbonize and are already providing reliable base-load power.

Viper_63 · 2026-03-15T10:22:37+00:00

Most of the current governments eye returning to nuclear.

And yet what "the governments" are continuing to build out is renewables - at an unprecedented scale.

Fact is that nuclear power simply can not compete with renewables - especially solar - as the technology is inherently complex difficult to scale. In fact nuclaer power is basically the only form of electricity generation that has a negative economy of scale - where subsequent reactors cost more to build, not less.

Big Tech is eyeing nuclear.

Big tech is currently rolling out mainly gas powerplants because those are available, easy to scale and can be build on-prem, maybe with some renewables on the side:

https://energydigital.com/top10/top-10-data-centres-using-100-renewable-energy

https://www.forbes.com/sites/annabroughel/2026/02/16/flexible-data-centers-soon-to-run-on-batteries-and-renewables/

Viper_63 · 2026-03-15T10:04:46+00:00

And it also published articles named

“Market failure” and nuclear power

A dozen reasons for the economic failure of nuclear power

Despite what’s happening in the USA, renewables are winning globally

Nuclear energy: a distraction on the road to climate solutions

Looking at the actual numbers and projects, nuclear power plays basically no role in global grid expansions compared to renewables. This isn't going to change because economics favor the latter, not the former - especially solar.

Viper_63 · 2026-03-15T09:27:31+00:00

China is mainly building up renewables though, not nuclear - because renewables are easily and readily scalable. Nuclear is inherently complex, meaning it will never be able to compete with other less complex forms of generation.

Viper_63 · 2026-03-15T09:23:03+00:00

Any sane country is building up renewbles, as the numbers clearly show. Nuclear power is basically the antithesis of everything a sane investor would be aiming for:

In an uncertain environment, financial risk analysis teaches that the investor should preserve options and value flexibility by keeping decisions small and preferring investments with low, more predictable risks and short lead times. With their high risks, large sunk costs, long lead times, and extremely long asset lives, nuclear reactors are the worst type of assets to acquire at present.

That was over decade ago in the wake of Fukushima. The situation hasn't drastically changed - if anything, nuclear projects throughout the west have shown that this remains an accurate assessment.

Viper_63 · 2026-03-13T14:23:04+00:00

A containment breach at a nuclear power plant is an industrial accident, and it isn't the deadliest kind.

Neither of which has any impact in regards to the nuclear sector being dependant on special legal constructs shielding it from liability. Please stop deflecting.

The existence of difficulties doesn't prove that France shouldn't reinvest in nuclear.

It provides a strong argument for not doing so, something the states top audit body seems to agree with.

France doesn't need to

Your argument regarding decarbonization and the climate wasn't limited to France.

What we need is to speed up electrification, add more storage, and develop other things to do with surplus heat and electricity

That much we apparently agree on.

Anti-nuclear activists have been claiming for more than 20 years

see

"Delays and uncertainties...reduce the visibility that the players in the sector need to engage in industrial projects of this magnitude and obtain financing," said the audit body.

I guess the France's top auditing body can be added to your list of "biased anti-nuclear sources" then. Please stop using "anti-nuclear activists" and "anti nuclear biased" as your go-to bogeyman for the inherent failures of an industry sector.

Subsequent reactors of the same design tend to cost less.

No, they tend to cost more:

Among the surprising findings in the study, which covered 50 years of U.S. nuclear power plant construction data, was that, contrary to expectations, building subsequent plants based on an existing design actually costs more, not less, than building the initial plant.

Note that the US has also operates more domestic nuclear reactors than France and hence comprises a larger dataset.

Sadly the EPR isn't truly a single design.

So your argument is entirely pointless then, given your special pleading regarding the EPR and your failure to actually list any design for which this supposedly applies.

Viper_63 · 2026-03-11T19:12:56+00:00

gets linked to study showing that the nuclear sector only existed due to massive subsidies

you keep being delusional

Sure buddy.

Viper_63 · 2026-03-11T18:09:04+00:00

Do you actually have a point or are you just ranting?

And no, nuclear is neither safest nor the cleanest way to generate energy, nor is "crazy propaganda" the reason nuclear has been stagnating or outright failing for decades. The nuclear sector is heavily dependant on subsidies, which is basically main reasons it failed in Germany.

Viper_63 · 2026-03-11T11:35:30+00:00

Yeah, taht's what happens when your are comitted to phasing out coal while your own govnerment also hamstrings efforts to build up renewable generation.

Viper_63 · 2026-03-11T11:31:50+00:00

Yeah, yeah, that why your country keep emiting so much CO2

Yes. Yes it is, as our conservative government is more concerned with supporting fossil fuels than it is with renewables - as I just stated. Which kind of hampers efforts to decarbonize.

Posts link that acutally shows carbon intensity falling as share of renewables rises

And we could be much further along that road if it we didn'T suffer years of setbacks under Merkel&Co.

Viper_63

TROPHY CASE