The "green" world already wants to return to nuclear power, but the time is lost

Novye Izvestia has already written that the so-called “green agenda”, or rather the objective difficulties that arose during its implementation, reawakened interest in nuclear power. So, French President Emmanuel Macron said the other day that his country will resume the construction of a nuclear power plant:

“In order to guarantee energy security, to guarantee the supply of electricity in our country and to meet our goal of carbon neutrality by 2050, for the first time in several decades, we will resume construction of a nuclear reactor in France and we will develop renewable energy sources...”

Britain is not far behind. Rolls-Royce has raised £ 455 million ($ 617 million) to develop small nuclear reactors for the UK, with the British government covering half of the costs, Bloomberg reported. The first modular low-power nuclear reactors may appear as early as the early 2030s. Rolls-Royce estimates that London needs 16 such devices to replace aging nuclear power plants between 2030 and 2050.

In the US, it's the same: The life of California's Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant must be extended to meet its climate goals, according to a report from researchers at Stanford University and MIT.

The Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant currently generates about 8% of California's electricity, and it accounts for 15% of carbon-free energy production. Moving the plant closure to 2025 will reduce the carbon emissions of California's power plants by more than 10% compared to 2017 levels. If the nuclear power plant operates until 2045, it will save the state up to $ 21 billion, scientists calculated.

The question of closing the station was raised shortly after the accident at the Japanese nuclear power plant "Fukushima". The California public was concerned about earthquakes, nuclear waste and the need to use water to cool the plants. In 2016, the licenses for two NPP reactors were valid until 2024-25.

This decision was based on the belief that wind and solar power could be used to replenish the closure of the nuclear power plant. However, California has been experiencing regular power outages due to extreme heat over the past two years, and the accelerated transition to electric vehicles is likely to add to the problems of its power system. “To tackle climate change in the best possible way, we really need to consider the possibilities of nuclear power,” commented Stephen Chu, US Secretary of Energy under Barack Obama and now a professor of physics at Stanford University.

Moreover, China is also there. The media reported that Beijing is also betting on nuclear power and is going to build 150 nuclear reactors over the next 15 years.

In this regard, the experts of the Meister channel write:

“The decisions of Great Britain and then France to resume the construction of nuclear power plants, at first glance, do not concern Russian politics, but this is only at first glance.

On the one hand, this immediately gives Russia two powerful situational allies in the global debate on decarbonization, where the recognition or non-recognition of nuclear energy as clean is one of the main topics. On the other hand, Germany remains the enemy of the nuclear power plant, and this makes it possible to count on the preservation of substantial volumes of hydrocarbon exports - because only in the wind and the sun, the energy industry in Germany cannot be pulled, as well as in Eastern Europe, while the latter will find it more difficult to follow the "atomic" path - this is not cheap.

Thus, Russia can maintain its position as an exporter of oil and gas, and has reason to hope to develop the export of services for the construction and maintenance of nuclear power plants in the future - without Rosatom, the balance of nuclear services in the world will not grow together, demand is higher than supply, and road capacity is scarce.

Inside the country, this gives grounds for expanding the construction of nuclear power plants, including in order to facilitate the development of new regions (the same projects of Siberian cities), presenting it outside as a transition to clean energy - and without the slightest guile. Relevant, including at the regional level ... "

However, network analyst Alexander Rozov diminished optimism about a new round in the development of nuclear energy, no matter how tempting it may look:

“That this will happen was predictable 13 years ago (when the Great Recession began). The fact that the motor would break down in the energy line was predictable 6 years ago (when the Paris Agreement appeared). The fact that the only alternative to carbon-fuel energy is only nuclear energy (and not "green" renewable energy sources) was generally clear from the very beginning of talks about abandoning fossil coal, oil and natural gas.

You can list the trivial forecasts that have come true. One way or another, now, foolishly spoiling the carbon-fuel energy and falling through the flimsy renewable energy sources into a total energy shortage, the elites are drawn to nuclear energy (which they spoiled even earlier - remember the "green" curses on Chernobyl and Fukushima)..."

However, the analyst sees serious obstacles along the way:

“Let's sort it out in order.

First, even if the construction is accelerated to the utmost, it will still take 3-4 years to build an NPP unit. Meanwhile, the elite do not have three or four years. In the current situation, the systemic material (including energy) crisis will tear their world order to shreds much faster. Pieces are flying now as winter approaches.

Secondly, it is not enough to build a nuclear power plant - it is still necessary to provide them with nuclear fuel. This requires an increase in the extraction and processing of ore, an increase in the productivity of plants for the separation of uranium, the construction of additional installations for its isotopic separation (enrichment), and the formation of the fuel itself (which is now oxide pellets for fuel rods). Now, the world capacities, which have been under construction for more than half a century, are designed to provide fuel for about 190 operating nuclear power plants. To provide another 150 new Chinese plus new European nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel production capacity will have to be doubled.

It would be possible to develop new technologies that do not require expensive scarce fuel and complex structures with scarce materials (for such a simplification and cheapening there was a scientific groundwork at the end of the 20th century), but ...

... No one takes the liberty of completely abandoning technological and layout solutions that have become an industry tradition, a dogma, an indisputable standard, nailed down tightly by bureaucratic nails. Not for a horse: it is impossible to design a new small nuclear power - like the old big one.

(...) Elites rush in search of a way out, and announce to science a request for miracles. The science that they (the elites) have corrupted and corrupted over the past decade. As you might guess, science easily sells them future miracles.

So, the startup Helion Energy plans to launch its fusion reactor in 2024. A fusion energy startup could be the first in the world to create a continuously operating and generating fusion reactor. For this purpose, he has already raised half a billion dollars. It is clear to independent experts that in three years the board of Helion Energy will shrug its shoulders and give a hundred reasons why nothing has worked out so far ...

In general, the ending is predictable. We can stock up on moonshine and cucumbers, make ourselves comfortable, and get ready to watch the show: "the demon of history turns the global order into shredded garbage for disposal"..."