7 ms·

Europe asks if reviving nuclear is the answer to energy shocks

56 points by dabinat 7mo ago

jmyeet 7mo ago
Short answer? No: > Nuclear development is a long-term project, not a short-term fix to current energy insecurity. Long answer? Still no. Flamanville [1] took 15 years (1o over estimate) and the cost was five times what was projected. Hinkley Point-C [2] is first projected to come online in 2030 (18 years after commencement) and the costs will at least double. Both are mentioned in the article. The amortized cost of nuclear power makes it among the most expensive forms of electricity generation. And they take forever to build. Not a single nuclear power plants (of the ~700 built in the world) has been built without significant government contributions. And they won't get cheaper. SMR (also mentioned in the article) doesn't make sense. Nuclear plants are better when they're bigger. SMR is just another way of extracting money from the government for dead end research. Europe as a whole has a history of colonialism. This is the basic for European social democracies: offshorting their problems and costs onto the Global South. They've taken the same approach with energy. In the 2010s, Europe outsourced its energy security to Russia and that has had obvious conseequences for Ukraine. This was actually an incredibly rare W for the first Trump administration: in 2018 the administration warned Europe of the dangers of Russian gas and badgered Germany into building an LNG port with the Trump-Juncker agreement [3]. This was both correct and fortuitous after Europe suddenly needed to import a lot of LNG from 2022. Europe also outsources its security to the United States and that's partly why they're in this mess now. Europe is suffering for providing material aid to a war of choice in Iran that they didn't consent to or otherwise want. The article mentions the issue of finding money for defence spending to meet US demands. That's money primarily for US defense contractors. You think that might be an issue? Renewables, particularly wind and solar, are the path forward. As is divorcing itself from being a US vassal state. A lot of Europe's policies come down to the failed austerity policies after 2008. Taxing wealth and barring profit shifting to low-tax jurisdictions is the path forward here, not strangling ever-decreasing social safety nets. Austerity is corporate welfare for banks. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... [3]: https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-lng-europe-after-trump-juncker-agreement https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-lng-europe-after-trump-junc...
- unethical_ban 7mo ago
  Not arguing that solar+wind are more and more viable and economical. But there's a weird juxtaposition here: You criticize the fact that nuclear power must be subsidized to be accomplished, but support strong social safety nets. To me, relative energy independence is a core societal goal and nuclear is a hell of a lot better than coal or oil or NG. It still requires fissile material, though.
  - dotcoma 7mo ago
    It requires 15 years from plan to energy being produced, at best. We don’t have all that time.
    - serial_dev 7mo ago
      The best time to plant a tree was 15 years ago. The second best time is now.
      - dotcoma 7mo ago
        The best time is now, but for solar.
      - pfdietz 7mo ago
        The best time to have given up on new nuclear construction was decades ago. The second best time is now.
- jemmyw 7mo ago
  Although I'm not a huge proponent of nuclear power over renewables, I'm not sure the overruns in those projects are a good argument. These projects become hard to cost and understand up front because so few are built. If the UK built 10 then the costs would come down and the knowledge and experience would grow.
  - jacquesm 7mo ago
    That's the problem: the cost doesn't really go down. You can only operate nuclear if you guarantee the prices a decade ahead. That's just not realistic and the end result is that you'll end up subsidizing ever KWh produced and then you still have to factor in decommissioning costs. Nuclear is fantastic technology, but we can do so much better.
jacquesm 7mo ago
No, what they should do instead is decentralize energy generation to the point that we're in cockroach mode. And if that means that transportation of goods gets priority over transportation of people then so be it until we've figured that one out. The sooner we get this over with the better. Install as much solar and wind as we can and get to the point where we have a glut and then back the up with decentralized storage.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > cockroach mode What does this mean?
  - jacquesm 7mo ago
    Get decentralized to the point that no single point of failure will result in wholesale outages: resilient as cockroaches. You can't do that if you have interconnects that have to work for society to work. The centralized electrical grid was a great idea and it got us very far. But it is just too fragile. Much better if you can have many (millions) of points of generation, storage and consumption and a far more opportunistic level of interconnect.
    - consumer451 7mo ago
      Centralization of power distribution is a national security risk in every country. The only problem is that we have to convince the centralized power industries to give up their complete control of our local and global economies. I have been thinking about this for decades, as the path forward has been obvious for that long. Those in control just keep doubling down. It appears that they would rather destroy our ecosystems, and risk economic collapse, instead of just adjusting their investment strategies.
      - jacquesm 7mo ago
        Precisely. But if it isn't clear now then the only way it will become clear will be through catastrophe.
firefoxd 7mo ago
Nuclear is the answer to our infinite appetite for energy. For the long term, nuclear will be part of the solution. With that said, there is no such thing as an energy shock right now. Instead, Europe has allies who blatantly attacked a sovereign nation. The answer to that is to condemn and sanction the instigators. What are laws for if they can selectively applied? This is a political problem.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > Nuclear is the answer to our infinite appetite for energy Approximately 100% of the energy in our solar system radiates from the Sun. Long term, solar is the answer. Nuclear is a really good carrier. In the medium term, we need more energy. Preferably cheap. Ideally clean. Going all in on one mode doesn't make sense because it virtually demand the creation of bottlenecks and single points of failure.
  - petre 7mo ago
    What do we do if another asteroid strikes, raises dust plumes and causes volcanic activity for years? The solution is to diversify renewable energy sources. Nuclear takes to long to plan and build. If that is fixed, then great.
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > solution is to diversify renewable energy sources There are two economically-viable renewable sources: solar and wind. Everything else is, to put it succinctly, bullshit. We're not producing and deploying as much solar and wind as we can. But global production has limits. Going all in on just those two (together with batteries) requires massively overpaying. That, in turn, makes the economy uncompetitive. > Nuclear takes to long to plan and build. If that is fixed, then great Permitting takes forever, too. Nuclear can be done quicker and cheaper, we've seen China do that. It's a good part of the mix because we just need to add power, and ideally, with economies of scale.
      - 7mo ago
JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
By "Europe asks" the article means someone wrote a white paper [1]. Europe's energy strategy–together with Russian and American military adventurism and Chinese economic nationalism–probably puts it into a recession this year. I have a lot of respect for the aims of the European project. But as currently structured, I see no mechanism by which hard decisions can be made. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52026DC0117&qid=1773310096275 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
- SilverElfin 7mo ago
  By mechanism and structure are you basically saying they’re too slow and bureaucratic to act in time to avoid a recession? Or that there is literally no way for them to revive nuclear for some reason?
  - amarant 7mo ago
    There is very little hope. Restarting plants that have been offline for years is not simple, and building new ones is a decades long venture. Either approach would take too long.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > they’re too slow and bureaucratic to act in time to avoid a recession? "The energy imports dependency rate in the EU was 57%, which means that nearly 60% of the EU’s energy needs were met by net imports" [1]. To put that in perspective, Sri Lanka–an island nation–has an import dependency ratio of 60% [2]. A European recession is coming because Europe made wrong decisions in the past. I don't know if there is anything it can do in the short term to fix this. Just, potentially, alleviate the pain. > there is literally no way for them to revive nuclear for some reason? Nuclear's problem in the West is we overregulate it. I'm not seeing a clear way for the EU to fix this problem, barring France striking a deal in exchange for extending its nuclear-weapons umbrella. For nuclear, the EU's veto rules mean between Germany's greens and Hungary's Russophilia, nothing transformative can get done. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/wdn-20260318-1 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/w... [2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.IMP.CONS.ZS?most_recent_value_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.IMP.CONS.ZS?most_rec...
amarant 7mo ago
I've been saying exactly this since around 09. Glad to see the rest of Europe is finally catching up. Yes we should turn to renewables as much as possible, but we should replace fossil powerplants first, and then nuclear. I'm honestly not sure if 100% renewables is even in the cards for Europe. It's located further north than you probably think [1], which means less sun. Wind is a better fit than solar in the north, but in Sweden we do occasionally get entire weeks with almost no wind, and effectively 0 sun. Hydro is a good alternative for Sweden, and one that is built out extensively.a good thing about hydro is that you can control how much energy it produces to fit demand(ie, produce less energy on windy days). You can't really do that with nuclear. The entire energy situation in the north is super complex. In the winter any energy source will be profitable, as energy prices skyrocket, sometimes as much as SEK 3/kWh. In the summer however you might end up paying to produce, as energy prices go negative. The problem with solar panels and arctic seasons is that you get periods with high energy demand alternating with periods of high energy production. And the periods are way too long to bridge with batteries (~3 months). The extensive solar buildout in Sweden means free energy in the summer, which means a lot of energy production is gonna be a loss leader for around 3-4 months. And then extreme power shortages where you can charge premium prices during 3-4 winter months, with a brief period of sanity and approximate balance in between It's a very weird situation, and we're definitely building a sustainable power grid in "hard mode". On top of that Sweden actually exports energy to Germany, because they decided nuclear power was scary. A nuclear base production would be my first choice, and then balance primarily wind and hydro for the majority of the remainder. Solar panels are kind of wasted in the north, but a godsend in continental Europe. Ideally Sweden would invest German solar fields, or just cut them off from our already strained grid during the winter months(serves them right for shutting down all their nuclear for no reason, fucking idiots) [1]https://youtube.com/shorts/C7-t_Ya6gI4?si=3EnxpFce59-VZb8B https://youtube.com/shorts/C7-t_Ya6gI4?si=3EnxpFce59-VZb8B
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > we should turn to renewables as much as possible, but we should replace fossil powerplants first, and then nuclear Europe needs to be adding power sources. Anyone talking about replacement right now or in the next few years is counterproductively misreading the political situation.
SilverElfin 7mo ago
It was dumb to ever let the nuclear industry and deployment stagnate. That said, I think what Trump is doing, by stacking the NRC with his cronies and quickly approving new reactor designs from companies his friends/family are invested in, is more dangerous than Europe doing nothing.
sam345 7mo ago
All the smart people said fossil fuels bad and renewables were the answer. Now not so much? Nuke is good but why not try lighter regulation, less central planning, and less trying to be smarter than the market and science. Stifling energy innovation and flexibility with central planning is never going to get efficient clean and sufficient energy to support a healthy growing economy that leads to growing standard of living for all.
bryanlarsen 7mo ago
Ontario Canada is planning on spending $400 Billion on a nuclear plant. And that's before the inevitable cost overruns. The government is running ads touting that they're doing it to stay competitive. Having the most expensive energy in the entire world is not the way to be competitive. Especially when next door to Quebec with its cheap hydro power. Maybe Europe will take the "most expensive energy in the world" title away from Ontario. Europe's LNG energy infrastructure is expensive, but new build nuclear is even more expensive.
- Gud 7mo ago
  Source for these numbers?
  - bryanlarsen 7mo ago
    Asking for sources is lazy JAQ rebuttal. The numbers are readily available and trivial to Google, easily falsifiable. If I'm lying you can post a rebuttal and score your Internet points that way.
oliwarner 7mo ago
It doesn't stabilise transport fuel prices while so much long and mid haul logistics, and farming is running on fossil fuels. Those are where immediate price volatility occurs and quickly compounds.
fortranfiend 7mo ago
To restart a nuclear power plant, you must go through every planned maintenance activity that was cancelled or not done in the mothballed time frame, you have to inspect every pipe, every pump, every valve, test every breaker, snubber, and emergency diesel until every single device is satisfactory. On top of that cyber security regulations rolled out between 2003-2018 world wide for nuclear you would also have to do a mountain of paperwork to either confirm with NEI 08-09, the EPRI TAM or equivalent. You will likely have to upgrade your digital infrastructure entirely to get to that point as well. You would also have to hire in seasoned employees in operations, maintenance, chemistry, health physics, engineering, licensing, procurement, and security. Going from a barebones security staff guarding a long term storage yard to one protecting a full nuclear power plant would also take time. It would be 3 to 5 years to accomplish everything if money was not an issue. All of this spend is on top of no electrical generation. And what parts were sold to other plants that now need replacements. So every industry that supports those parts and manufacturing would also have to spin up more resources. Economically there would be positive effects. The reason the American plants are restarting is a lot of private capital, a lot of government money and a willing regulator. 2 billion usd is a steal compared to 25 to build a new one.

56 points by dabinat 7mo ago

Short answer? No: > Nuclear development is a long-term project, not a short-term fix to current energy insecurity. Long answer? Still no. Flamanville [1] took 15 years (1o over estimate) and the cost was five times what was projected. Hinkley Point-C [2] is first projected to come online in 2030 (18 years after commencement) and the costs will at least double. Both are mentioned in the article. The amortized cost of nuclear power makes it among the most expensive forms of electricity generation. And they take forever to build. Not a single nuclear power plants (of the ~700 built in the world) has been built without significant government contributions. And they won't get cheaper. SMR (also mentioned in the article) doesn't make sense. Nuclear plants are better when they're bigger. SMR is just another way of extracting money from the government for dead end research. Europe as a whole has a history of colonialism. This is the basic for European social democracies: offshorting their problems and costs onto the Global South. They've taken the same approach with energy. In the 2010s, Europe outsourced its energy security to Russia and that has had obvious conseequences for Ukraine. This was actually an incredibly rare W for the first Trump administration: in 2018 the administration warned Europe of the dangers of Russian gas and badgered Germany into building an LNG port with the Trump-Juncker agreement [3]. This was both correct and fortuitous after Europe suddenly needed to import a lot of LNG from 2022. Europe also outsources its security to the United States and that's partly why they're in this mess now. Europe is suffering for providing material aid to a war of choice in Iran that they didn't consent to or otherwise want. The article mentions the issue of finding money for defence spending to meet US demands. That's money primarily for US defense contractors. You think that might be an issue? Renewables, particularly wind and solar, are the path forward. As is divorcing itself from being a US vassal state. A lot of Europe's policies come down to the failed austerity policies after 2008. Taxing wealth and barring profit shifting to low-tax jurisdictions is the path forward here, not strangling ever-decreasing social safety nets. Austerity is corporate welfare for banks. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... [3]: https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-lng-europe-after-trump-juncker-agreement https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-lng-europe-after-trump-junc...

unethical_ban 7mo ago
Not arguing that solar+wind are more and more viable and economical. But there's a weird juxtaposition here: You criticize the fact that nuclear power must be subsidized to be accomplished, but support strong social safety nets. To me, relative energy independence is a core societal goal and nuclear is a hell of a lot better than coal or oil or NG. It still requires fissile material, though.
- dotcoma 7mo ago
  It requires 15 years from plan to energy being produced, at best. We don’t have all that time.
  - serial_dev 7mo ago
    The best time to plant a tree was 15 years ago. The second best time is now.
    - dotcoma 7mo ago
      The best time is now, but for solar.
    - pfdietz 7mo ago
      The best time to have given up on new nuclear construction was decades ago. The second best time is now.
jemmyw 7mo ago
Although I'm not a huge proponent of nuclear power over renewables, I'm not sure the overruns in those projects are a good argument. These projects become hard to cost and understand up front because so few are built. If the UK built 10 then the costs would come down and the knowledge and experience would grow.
- jacquesm 7mo ago
  That's the problem: the cost doesn't really go down. You can only operate nuclear if you guarantee the prices a decade ahead. That's just not realistic and the end result is that you'll end up subsidizing ever KWh produced and then you still have to factor in decommissioning costs. Nuclear is fantastic technology, but we can do so much better.

jacquesm 7mo ago

No, what they should do instead is decentralize energy generation to the point that we're in cockroach mode. And if that means that transportation of goods gets priority over transportation of people then so be it until we've figured that one out. The sooner we get this over with the better. Install as much solar and wind as we can and get to the point where we have a glut and then back the up with decentralized storage.

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> cockroach mode What does this mean?
- jacquesm 7mo ago
  Get decentralized to the point that no single point of failure will result in wholesale outages: resilient as cockroaches. You can't do that if you have interconnects that have to work for society to work. The centralized electrical grid was a great idea and it got us very far. But it is just too fragile. Much better if you can have many (millions) of points of generation, storage and consumption and a far more opportunistic level of interconnect.
  - consumer451 7mo ago
    Centralization of power distribution is a national security risk in every country. The only problem is that we have to convince the centralized power industries to give up their complete control of our local and global economies. I have been thinking about this for decades, as the path forward has been obvious for that long. Those in control just keep doubling down. It appears that they would rather destroy our ecosystems, and risk economic collapse, instead of just adjusting their investment strategies.
    - jacquesm 7mo ago
      Precisely. But if it isn't clear now then the only way it will become clear will be through catastrophe.

firefoxd 7mo ago

Nuclear is the answer to our infinite appetite for energy. For the long term, nuclear will be part of the solution. With that said, there is no such thing as an energy shock right now. Instead, Europe has allies who blatantly attacked a sovereign nation. The answer to that is to condemn and sanction the instigators. What are laws for if they can selectively applied? This is a political problem.

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> Nuclear is the answer to our infinite appetite for energy Approximately 100% of the energy in our solar system radiates from the Sun. Long term, solar is the answer. Nuclear is a really good carrier. In the medium term, we need more energy. Preferably cheap. Ideally clean. Going all in on one mode doesn't make sense because it virtually demand the creation of bottlenecks and single points of failure.
- petre 7mo ago
  What do we do if another asteroid strikes, raises dust plumes and causes volcanic activity for years? The solution is to diversify renewable energy sources. Nuclear takes to long to plan and build. If that is fixed, then great.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > solution is to diversify renewable energy sources There are two economically-viable renewable sources: solar and wind. Everything else is, to put it succinctly, bullshit. We're not producing and deploying as much solar and wind as we can. But global production has limits. Going all in on just those two (together with batteries) requires massively overpaying. That, in turn, makes the economy uncompetitive. > Nuclear takes to long to plan and build. If that is fixed, then great Permitting takes forever, too. Nuclear can be done quicker and cheaper, we've seen China do that. It's a good part of the mix because we just need to add power, and ideally, with economies of scale.
    - 7mo ago

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago

By "Europe asks" the article means someone wrote a white paper [1]. Europe's energy strategy–together with Russian and American military adventurism and Chinese economic nationalism–probably puts it into a recession this year. I have a lot of respect for the aims of the European project. But as currently structured, I see no mechanism by which hard decisions can be made. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52026DC0117&qid=1773310096275 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...

SilverElfin 7mo ago
By mechanism and structure are you basically saying they’re too slow and bureaucratic to act in time to avoid a recession? Or that there is literally no way for them to revive nuclear for some reason?
- amarant 7mo ago
  There is very little hope. Restarting plants that have been offline for years is not simple, and building new ones is a decades long venture. Either approach would take too long.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > they’re too slow and bureaucratic to act in time to avoid a recession? "The energy imports dependency rate in the EU was 57%, which means that nearly 60% of the EU’s energy needs were met by net imports" [1]. To put that in perspective, Sri Lanka–an island nation–has an import dependency ratio of 60% [2]. A European recession is coming because Europe made wrong decisions in the past. I don't know if there is anything it can do in the short term to fix this. Just, potentially, alleviate the pain. > there is literally no way for them to revive nuclear for some reason? Nuclear's problem in the West is we overregulate it. I'm not seeing a clear way for the EU to fix this problem, barring France striking a deal in exchange for extending its nuclear-weapons umbrella. For nuclear, the EU's veto rules mean between Germany's greens and Hungary's Russophilia, nothing transformative can get done. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/wdn-20260318-1 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/w... [2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.IMP.CONS.ZS?most_recent_value_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.IMP.CONS.ZS?most_rec...

amarant 7mo ago

I've been saying exactly this since around 09. Glad to see the rest of Europe is finally catching up. Yes we should turn to renewables as much as possible, but we should replace fossil powerplants first, and then nuclear. I'm honestly not sure if 100% renewables is even in the cards for Europe. It's located further north than you probably think [1], which means less sun. Wind is a better fit than solar in the north, but in Sweden we do occasionally get entire weeks with almost no wind, and effectively 0 sun. Hydro is a good alternative for Sweden, and one that is built out extensively.a good thing about hydro is that you can control how much energy it produces to fit demand(ie, produce less energy on windy days). You can't really do that with nuclear. The entire energy situation in the north is super complex. In the winter any energy source will be profitable, as energy prices skyrocket, sometimes as much as SEK 3/kWh. In the summer however you might end up paying to produce, as energy prices go negative. The problem with solar panels and arctic seasons is that you get periods with high energy demand alternating with periods of high energy production. And the periods are way too long to bridge with batteries (~3 months). The extensive solar buildout in Sweden means free energy in the summer, which means a lot of energy production is gonna be a loss leader for around 3-4 months. And then extreme power shortages where you can charge premium prices during 3-4 winter months, with a brief period of sanity and approximate balance in between It's a very weird situation, and we're definitely building a sustainable power grid in "hard mode". On top of that Sweden actually exports energy to Germany, because they decided nuclear power was scary. A nuclear base production would be my first choice, and then balance primarily wind and hydro for the majority of the remainder. Solar panels are kind of wasted in the north, but a godsend in continental Europe. Ideally Sweden would invest German solar fields, or just cut them off from our already strained grid during the winter months(serves them right for shutting down all their nuclear for no reason, fucking idiots) [1]https://youtube.com/shorts/C7-t_Ya6gI4?si=3EnxpFce59-VZb8B https://youtube.com/shorts/C7-t_Ya6gI4?si=3EnxpFce59-VZb8B

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> we should turn to renewables as much as possible, but we should replace fossil powerplants first, and then nuclear Europe needs to be adding power sources. Anyone talking about replacement right now or in the next few years is counterproductively misreading the political situation.

SilverElfin 7mo ago

It was dumb to ever let the nuclear industry and deployment stagnate. That said, I think what Trump is doing, by stacking the NRC with his cronies and quickly approving new reactor designs from companies his friends/family are invested in, is more dangerous than Europe doing nothing.

sam345 7mo ago

All the smart people said fossil fuels bad and renewables were the answer. Now not so much? Nuke is good but why not try lighter regulation, less central planning, and less trying to be smarter than the market and science. Stifling energy innovation and flexibility with central planning is never going to get efficient clean and sufficient energy to support a healthy growing economy that leads to growing standard of living for all.

bryanlarsen 7mo ago

Ontario Canada is planning on spending $400 Billion on a nuclear plant. And that's before the inevitable cost overruns. The government is running ads touting that they're doing it to stay competitive. Having the most expensive energy in the entire world is not the way to be competitive. Especially when next door to Quebec with its cheap hydro power. Maybe Europe will take the "most expensive energy in the world" title away from Ontario. Europe's LNG energy infrastructure is expensive, but new build nuclear is even more expensive.

Gud 7mo ago
Source for these numbers?
- bryanlarsen 7mo ago
  Asking for sources is lazy JAQ rebuttal. The numbers are readily available and trivial to Google, easily falsifiable. If I'm lying you can post a rebuttal and score your Internet points that way.

oliwarner 7mo ago

It doesn't stabilise transport fuel prices while so much long and mid haul logistics, and farming is running on fossil fuels. Those are where immediate price volatility occurs and quickly compounds.

fortranfiend 7mo ago

To restart a nuclear power plant, you must go through every planned maintenance activity that was cancelled or not done in the mothballed time frame, you have to inspect every pipe, every pump, every valve, test every breaker, snubber, and emergency diesel until every single device is satisfactory. On top of that cyber security regulations rolled out between 2003-2018 world wide for nuclear you would also have to do a mountain of paperwork to either confirm with NEI 08-09, the EPRI TAM or equivalent. You will likely have to upgrade your digital infrastructure entirely to get to that point as well. You would also have to hire in seasoned employees in operations, maintenance, chemistry, health physics, engineering, licensing, procurement, and security. Going from a barebones security staff guarding a long term storage yard to one protecting a full nuclear power plant would also take time. It would be 3 to 5 years to accomplish everything if money was not an issue. All of this spend is on top of no electrical generation. And what parts were sold to other plants that now need replacements. So every industry that supports those parts and manufacturing would also have to spin up more resources. Economically there would be positive effects. The reason the American plants are restarting is a lot of private capital, a lot of government money and a willing regulator. 2 billion usd is a steal compared to 25 to build a new one.