 | Has Peak Oil--As a Meme--"Tipped"? (Out of Futures Backwardation and into Contango) | The Oil Drum | US Natural Gas: The Role of Unconventional Gas |  |
| Crude Oil: how high can it go? (19th century whaling as a model for oil depletion and price volatility) | The Oil Drum: Europe | Solar Islands: A new concept for low-cost solar energy at very large scale | |
Andris Piebalgs: Nuclear and the EU's Energy Policy
Posted by Luis de Sousa on May 19, 2008 - 10:02am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: andris piebalgs, energy policy, eu, european commission, nuclear [list all tags]
This week Andris Piebalgs talks Nuclear in his blog. Without taboos, Andris lays down the advantages of Nuclear energy that have put it at the core of the Commission's New Energy Policy for Europe.
Nuclear energy has been discussed many times at TOD, mostly from a technical perspective, on its practicality and long-term sustainability. This time we look at Nuclear Energy policy, from the perspective of an Executive that has made a clear option towards this energy source.
Source: NewScientistTech (click to enlarge)
Crossposted at the European Tribune
Concerns with CO2 emissions are still the main driver behind the EU's Energy Policy, but from the several texts reproduced henceforth, it is becoming clearer a certain sense of urgency towards energy security from the stakeholders.
In his blog, Andris starts by asserting that Nuclear has special a role to fulfill, that other energy sources and/or policies are not able to meet at the moment:
In this context, energy efficiency, renewables and sustainable biofuels have all a very important and growing contribution to make for a sustainable energy policy, as we have seen in previous entries of this blog. However, for the production of base-load energy at competitive prices, nuclear energy is currently the main low-carbon source in many EU Member States.
But there is more to Nuclear energy that makes it so attractive to policy makers at the moment:
Let’s start with some facts. Taken together, the EU is the largest nuclear electricity generator in the world, has a mature nuclear industry spanning the entire fuel cycle with its own technological base and highly skilled workforce. Currently, nuclear energy provides more than a third of EU electricity. It has proven to be a stable, reliable source, relatively shielded from price fluctuations when compared to the oil and gas markets. Conventional nuclear energy is essentially free from CO2 emissions and on the face of it, fulfils an important requirement of all three pillars of the EU energy policy, which are competitiveness, security of supply and sustainability. Continued use of nuclear energy therefore would increase our energy independence and supply security as well as contribute to the limitation of CO2 emissions.
[emphasis added]
As a consequence of the current Energy Policy approved by the Council in March of 2007 the Commission set up the European Nuclear Energy Forum in order to provide a debate among stakeholders in a way transparent to the EU citizens.
The idea is simply to have the politic stakeholders, regulators, industry stakeholders and scientists dialoguing together and at the same time projecting a friendlier image of Nuclear Fission in Europe, where safety is ahead of all concerns.
The Czech and Slovak Prime Ministers agreed on jointly host the Forum, which was set to be held alternatively in Bratislava and Prague. The first meeting took place in late November in Bratislava and the next will be held in Prague later this month. Andris promises to take with his luggage the proposals left by commentators at his blog.
After looking into some of the texts produced during the first meeting of the Forum, some passages seem worth reproducing here. Barroso was in China at that time and sent a letter that Andris, as the senior representative of the Commission, read during the opening session. Some important points were made:
In this context I really believe that there is a need for a full and frank debate about nuclear energy. It is not the EU's role, or indeed the role of the Commission, to decide for Member States whether they use nuclear energy or not.
But it is - in my view - not surprising that we are witnessing a renewed interest of nuclear energy at global level. Nuclear energy can have a role to play in meeting our growing concerns about security of supply and CO2 emission reductions. In the EU, around one third of the electricity currently comes from nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy also protects our economy against price volatility of energy prices, as nuclear power is less vulnerable to fuel price changes than some other energy sources. With the current record oil prices, this element is becoming increasingly important.
At the same time, I believe that in the context of the revival of nuclear energy, we need to develop further in Europe the most advanced framework for nuclear energy, meeting the highest standards of safety, security and non proliferation. The EU should also continue their efforts to ensure that such high standards are observed internationally, in the context of increased cooperation with the IAEA.
Although not the main driver, “price volatility” is gaining relevance. When Andris took on the speech with his own words he left it clear that there are serious problems. These appear to be some of the most anxious declarations on Oil ever produced by the Energy Commissioner:
I am concerned about the current escalation of the oil prices and its consequences for our economies. The energy package adopted by Heads of State and Government in March this year already highlighted the multi-dimensional challenges we are facing. But the exponential price increase of crude oil has even accelerated the need for swift and structural action. Therefore we increasingly need a totally open debate on all potential sources of energy, including nuclear energy, to reflect on our energy mix.
[...]
Together with and complementarily to the work of the High Level Group, improving nuclear safety must be an overwhelming principle of your dialogue here as well. The highest level of safety, but also of security and non-proliferation, is the absolute condition for the use and development of nuclear energy.
[...]
However I would like to stress that the highest possible level of safety is only a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient. Public acceptance is the second important pillar.
Building trust and increasing confidence in the use of nuclear energy are vital elements for public acceptance in democratic societies. Increased transparency and participation is in the interest of all, whatever their position on nuclear. This is at the core of the debates to which you will participate. Gaining trust and confidence, involving the citizens in the decision-making process, tackling all issues in a transparent way are not easy tasks. But they are issues on which you as decision makers or as influential observers have to focus your efforts on. It means demonstrating to people that the risks of nuclear energy are dealt with in a satisfactory manner, that the concerns of the population are taken seriously, and that you are all willing to help those who are not confident yet to get the necessary and balanced information which may gradually reassure them.
In a more elaborate way, Andris explains the importance of Nuclear energy in facing the challenges ahead for the EU. And once more the negative public image is presented as an obstacle left to overcome that could hinder the process.
On the first meeting's website you can find a plethora of texts from different people with different backgrounds. It is worth while to spend sometime studying them if you have the slightest interest in this matter.
Finally the conclusive document of this first meeting:
Main priorities for the Working Groups of the European Nucelar Energy Forum
“Opportunities of nuclear energy”
- To establish a Nuclear Energy Roadmap to improve the nuclear legal framework, including greater harmonization of licensing procedures.
- To analyse in more detail, in comparison with other energy sources, the competitiveness of nuclear energy in a European low carbon and global security context. To examine ways to translate some competitive advantages of nuclear energy in the final price of domestic and business consumers.
- To explore innovative models regarding regional approaches and financing possibilities in the field of nuclear energy.
- To examine the ways and means to maintain the industrial capacity while improving the industrial environment.
“Risks of nuclear energy”
- To support a greater harmonization of safety requirements at EU level for nuclear installations in the EU (notable through the High Level Group).
- To encourage Members States and industry to swiftly implement adequate nuclear waste disposal facilities, in particular deep geological repositories for high level waste.
- To call for sufficient funding for decommissioning and waste management through adequate methods.
- To develop innovative approaches and exchange best practices to ensure adequate training, both qualitatively and quantitatively, for nuclear engineers and technicians, including radioprotection (e.g. Possible European post-graduate degrees), and to strengthen the safety culture.
- To support the reinforcement of non-proliferation in the international context through a stronger European position and the strengthening of nuclear security.
“Information and transparency”
- To examine ways and means to better inform the public in the objective and factual terms all aspects of nuclear energy (e.g. in the context of new build, encourage common approaches between regulators).
- To analyse the most effective approaches to build up trust and confidence in the available information, by increasing transparency and giving access to all non-sensitive information.
- To provide information in clear language on the existing solutions for waste management.
- To exchange and develop best practices at European level between all actors (Member States, municipalities, industry, etc.).
I left on Andris' blog an idea for a European special budget for energy development. With an income tax of 0,1% to 0,2% on each EU citizen, a value in the order of 4 to 8 Giga €uros (4 to 8 short billion €uros) could be raised every year. That money could get a lot people and a lot of resources working together to develop the EU's energy future. Nuclear seems to be the discipline that could benefit the most from such programme, due to the extra infrastructure and waste disposal requirements.
Without starting another endless and quite often inconclusive technical debate, I would like this time to get comments on Nuclear Energy policy. What is the Commission doing right? What is it doing wrong? What alternative policies can be pursued?
And don't forget to pay a visit to Andris' blog and leave some ideas for the second meeting of the Forum.
Previous coverage of Andris Piebalgs blog:
Andris Piebalgs' priority number one
Andris Piebalgs : getting a sense of proportion
Piebalgs on European Energy Security
Luís de Sousa
TheOilDrum:Europe
This chart does't include Romania and Bulgaria .Romania has two CANDU reactors operating at Cernavoda with two more in construction and Bulgaria has the Kozloduy power station with 4 aging Chernobal type reactors and a new power station in construction at Belene with two reactors .
It's nice to see that the EU is finally waking up. Without incredible advances in energy storage technology, wind & solar will never be able to provide more than 10-20% of electric generation. They are also many times more expensive than competing technologies.
Hopefully it still isn't too late to avoid a climate collapse. If only the wisdom of James Lovelock was followed sooner.
For those new to this debate, it is likely that fast reactor technology will solve sustainability and waste issues:
http://www.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps74.pdf
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=340
The image is from 2003, it does not include the 1.6 GW reactor under construction in Finland either.
Likewise UK is down to 19 reactors in commission, I think, with the Oldbury Magnox station due to close later this year bringing this down to 17.
Guys, if any of you know of a more recent piece of media on this, please post it here. Thanks.
The Australian Uranium Association and the World Nuclear Association briefing papers. They are both obviously pro-nuclear, but the factual information, particularly on individual countries, appears to be comprehensive and up to date:
http://www.uic.com.au/nip.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/info.html
My post from a few months back has the latest information for the UK nuclear power stations: Nuclear Britain
I'm not familiar with the situation in Romania but Bulgaria currently has one nuclear power plant with 6 reactors and only the newest two (VVER-1000) are in use. The 4 older reactors - (VVER-440) have already been shut down. The new power plant in Belene has contracts for design, construction and installation signed for 2 1000MW reactors but it's not yet under construction. All reactors are VVER type and none are RBMK (the type used in Chernobyl) ie they are water-moderated instead of graphite-moderated design.
You are totally wrong about Kozloduy. It does NOT have the graphite RBMK reactors, it has the light water pressurized VVER-1000 reactors with a heavy re-enforced concrete containment structure, unlike Chernobyl. Maybe we should just call all nuclear reactors "Three-Mile-Island-Chernobyl" reactors. Who cares about the facts, right...
It's sad to see the same lies repeated over and over again.
"Bulgaria has the Kozloduy power station with 4 aging Chernobal type reactors"
Kozloduy power station has 6 reactors not 4. However only two of them are in operation - the two VVER-1000 reactors, similar to the ones Russia just completed in Tainwan NPP in China. The other 4 are of model VVER-440, and were stopped from operation under EU pressure by 2006. The VVER-440 type has been successfully operated for more than 3 decades now in NPPs in Finland (Lovvitse), Check Republic, Ukraine, Russia, Bulgaria.
None of the reactors, including the stopped ones is of the "Chernobyl type", which is RBMK. RBMK is the only reactor type in the world, which does not feature a containment vessel - a fact which made the Chernobyl disaster possible. Comparing it with the VVERs is tedious to say the least.
Many feel the private sector makes the best decisions on investment, a free market economy vs a planned economy.
Investment over and above what the private sector is willing to risk, as is being proposed here, should merit additional scrutiny. Why will the free market fail in this area?
With no government intervention, one can easily imagine electric rates climbing, followed by additional conservation, as well as increased private investment in renewables such as wind and solar.
There are many good reasons to move away from coal and other fossil fuels, to reduce the risk of future price swings as well as climate change risks, so a program to accelerate the adoption of alternatives makes sense.
However, nuclear has seen many tens of billions of subsidy already. Why not catch wind and solar up to the total amount of subsidies that nuclear has already received before giving additional subsidies to nuclear?
Indeed, if the politicians limited their involvement to defining an energy market which would provide stable supply plus a margin for growth the utilities themselves could focus on the specific technical aspects of providing cheap power. Subsidies for specific technologies are simply a waste of money and can actually inhibit better solutions to the problem when it doesn't come from the source you thought was the obvious answer.
It's a bit like gardening. Sometimes the weeds aren't weeds.
We are seeing it with the massive rail subsidies which exist across europe as well. Technically superior replacement systems are inhibited by the government support for the incumbent systems.
Still, I don't expect people to learn from their mistakes.
What gets politicians deeply involved in nuclear technology selection is that same old problem: the tendency of private enterprise to socialize the risk, privatize the profit.
The risk in a wind turbine technology is quite low so you don't see any wind energy companies going to government for liability protection. The nuclear industry, however, has got risk protection from the US congress explicitly and in the EU it is there at least implicitly as the EU governments realize they will have to fix whatever screws up.
So ultimately, the politicians know they will have to fix any screw ups and that gives them a deep and abiding interest in all facets of the industry, including technology selection.
Wind and solar already get obscene subsidies per kWh delivered; what more can you ask for?
Subsidies for nuclear power are a pittance in comparison to the unreasonable costs being leveraged on it. In the US the difference between the best experience and worst experience cost for equivalent reactors was at one point a factor 4. What accounts for the difference is that some reactors were held up for many years while paying labour to sit around, being forced to incorporate new features into the design during construction, accruing debt due to interest on a huge loan and being held up by legal hearings; while some reactors were not.
Nuclear power is held to an exceptional safety standard that no other power source has to endure. Fossil fuels in particular literally get away with murder.
If you agree to provide a stable regulatory environment and increase safety and environmental standards for all other power sources to bring them in line with nuclear power(in terms of deaths/TWh) I'd be happy to see the subsidies go away entirely.
I don't believe either solar or wind present much safety or environmental risk, but I'm sure no one would mind if they were held to the same standards as nuclear.
As far as the "obsene subsidies per kWh" wind and solar receive, why not level the playing field and give the same per kWh subsidy to all non-fossil fuel power generation (with no other subsidies)?
Even though the past subsidies for nuclear still dwarf anything solar or wind has received, a level playing field with a equal per-kWh subsidy would allow the private sector to allocate investment with minimal market distortions. I suspect nuclear would not see much investment under such a scenario however.
That's the funniest thing I've heard on TOD for ages!
I mean no disrespect, I just genuinely find that a rib-tickler!
Given that level playing field, solar PV would not exist, and wind might be in grave difficulties for anything but small amounts of power.
The profits of the French nuclear program would be immense - they already produce some of the cheapest power in Europe.
In principle though, I agree with your comments - you will never entirely remove the sticky hand of government, but the subsidy system is absurd.
New technologies should be financed by risk capital during their development, even if it is provided by the government, not supports at so much per kwh on the grounds that at some point it will get cheaper with mass production.
The biggest waste is in the Tokamac fusion research program, which is wholly impractical and will never produce economic power - other approaches are far superior.
There are two ways to view the subsidy question, in terms of allowing the differing technologies to compete on a level playing field.
One is to consider all past subsidies.
Assuming aggregate subsidies for nuclear total $90B in current dollars, $4B for solar and $6B for wind, it would take some serious R&D spending and production subsidies before the three can be compared on equal footing. One could also make the comparison between nuclear per kWh costs in 1970, or whenever it was that nuclear had received an R&D investment equal to what wind or solar have received now.
Given that present-day solar startups feel they will be able to compete with coal/nuclear/natural gas shortly and have only spent a fraction of $1B each, it would not be surprising that further R&D investments substantially higher would bring its costs below that of nuclear, and the same holds for wind power.
The other is ignore correcting past subsidy imbalances, and only look forward with equal subsidies for power generated.
Under this scenario, with say a $0.04/kWh generated subsidy, there would be no private sector investment in nuclear.
In the US, wind receieves a subsidy half that size and is growing exponentially, so doubling the subsidy would only increase the deployment rate.
Nuclear only works in the most socialistic of environments.
Your figures are cherry-picked in several respects.
Firstly, most of the subsidies for nuclear power are for the military and weapons programs, and had little to do with the peaceful generation of power, as are clean up costs.
In fact, programs such as the molten salt thorium rector were discontinued, partly because it is no good at producing material for nuclear weapons and partly because no money would have been made on processing fuel for them.
Your comments on wind are also wide of the mark, as at present wind power produces a very small percentage of power in the US.
At higher levels of penetration the grid would need beefing up substantially, and back-up, usually based on fossil fuels would be needed.
Your costings in fact take no account of that.
In contrast in practise and not as a matter of theory nuclear energy provides the vast majority of electricity for France, and at much lower than average European rates - that difference will only increase with the rising prices of gas.
A tax on carbon emissions would hit wind heavily, since in practise that is what is used for back-up.
The solution you are proposing is in practice only proven for a small percentage of generating capacity, usually by countries fortunate enough to have hydro back-up, and even then it is at high cost.
The wind resources of the States are excellent, far better than in Europe, but proposals to run the country on it are not in the realms of reality.
When the historic subsidies are off by a factor of twenty, what can you say?
By the time solar has seen additional investments of ~$85B, it is hard to say what the per kWh cost will be. Since a number of solar firms think they will be competitive with fossil fuel based power sources in two to three years, after a further $80B in R&D it could even be "too cheap to meter".
At that time, a fair comparison with today's nuclear costs will be possible.
Presumably you would be happy if the $85bn went exclusively into funding a space based system to build a missile defence system ,as that is about as relevant to domestic power production as most of the $85 bn was to civil nuclear power.
Even if you took that grossly inflated figure and distributed it across the number of Terawatts of electricity produce by nuclear power, you would still have a much lower figure than you would get by distributing the research dollars and subsidies across solar's power production.
For the record, I strongly support solar power and think it will have a very big part to play in providing energy, when used in sensible places, ie where it is sunny, and used appropriately, ie for peaking power at the moment, not baseload power.
That is why attempts to contrast solar and nuclear power and say that you could go all solar ignore present engineering and economics, especially for northern areas like Europe.
You are comparing your fantasy solution with a practical way of generating Europe's power.
Solar energy may improve vastly, but to put this forward as a 'proposal' at the present time is a disconnect with reality, particularly for northern Europe with its very poor isolation for several months in winter.
To be fair, we ought to stick to what we can engineer, not what you think may be possible at some time in the future, if we only throw enough money at it.
When making decisions about the future there always exist a very real set of alternatives.
The original post proposed:
"With an income tax of 0,1% to 0,2% on each EU citizen, a value in the order of 4 to 8 Giga €uros (4 to 8 short billion €uros) could be raised every year. That money could get a lot people and a lot of resources working together to develop the EU's energy future."
The question is, should taxpayer money be used to subsidize nuclear power, should it be used for solar and wind, or should the free market be left to work it out on its own.
The question of prior R&D spending is relevant because it gives one an idea of where a technology is on the investment/cost curve.
The more money invested in a given technology, the lower the costs.
Solar and wind are still way behind nuclear in total R&D investment, and one could argue have much more potential for lower costs in the future as the R&D spending catches up.
Your other posts make it abundantly clear that you know nothing whatsoever about the issues you pontificate on, as you are even unaware that both nuclear and renewables costs vary from country to country.
Since the subject of this thread is submissions to the European commission we will make sure that the relevant authorities are informed that an American on a blog doesn't like nuclear power, and has even taken the trouble to do a two minute google to confirm his prejudices! :-)
I guess if you don't want to discuss the issues, that response is as good as any.
As I pointed out below, I stated that new nuclear plant construction is going to have similar costs, not that renewable costs do not vary by location. Reread the posts.
I know you're worried that I'm going to influence European nuclear subsidy policies with my ill-informed posts, but I really think you should relax a bit. Isn't it the middle of the night there anyway?
Past subsidies is no indicator for future performace.
And the results do not scale with the spending, see for instance "war on cancer" in the 70:s or when Sweden in the 80:s poured billions into renewables after a referendum to phase out nuclear power. Both medicine and renewable energy were advanced by the efforts but the results were not in scale to the efforts.
Subsidizing power sources for historical fairness is economical lunacy. RnD money should be distributed according to future potential plus a wide margin for academic freedom and new innovations.
And when you implement the solutions please do it with a free market approach since we can not afford suboptimal solutions when we get resource bottlenecks.
I disagree that "past subsidies is no indicator for future performance".
Prior R&D spending is relevant because it gives one an idea of where a technology is on the investment/cost curve. The more money invested in a given technology, the lower the costs. Solar and wind are still way behind nuclear in total R&D investment, and one could argue have much more potential for lower costs in the future as the R&D spending catches up.
I agree there would be no point in "subsidizing power sources for historical fairness". I was only pointing it out for its relevance to the point above.
Any time you are discussing billions in new taxes to be injected somehow into the market, you've left the realm of the free market.
However, done properly, such action could accelerate the adoption of new, superior technologies. The question is how to apply the funds with the best odds of picking good solutions, without trying to "pick winners".
Historically, organizations with the most political influence get most of the funds. Obviously it would be nice to improve the present system.
One idea would be to create a set of large venture capital funds with the tax money. Citizens would have shares in the funds, and could vote on which fund directors to operate the fund. The directors would explain the investing stragegy they planned to use. Citizens would then receive profits based on how well their funds did. They could choose funds that were more short term focused, or ones that focused on a specific technology they believed in.
Are there urgent energy issues or aren't there ?
[sarcasm]
If not then perhaps there should be some movement for energy class equality (energy source class warfare). We must historically equalize funding for all energy source classes. And historically reparations for insufficient funding for underdeveloped energy classes. But why not also parse the energy sources by type within the energy classes. Equalize Thorium and molten salt reactors against the pressure water and boiler water reactors. Equalize the types of fusion reactors (laser ignition versus tokomaks, IEC/bussard fusion versus tokomaks). Equalize solar thing film CIGS versus silicon PV panels. Equalize Concentrated solar (various types) Parabolic trough versus dish versus power tower versus the new balloon and SUNRGI approach.
It is not like we have any urgent problems like running low on fossil fuels or just having expensive fossil fuels to worry about.
[/sarcasm]
Obviously we need to focus on what will work best now with the new money that will put to work on energy infrastructure. Whatever "unfairness" or "unequal" subsidization occured then "too damn bad".
Here is my view of energy externalities
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/01/energy-costs-with-externalities.html
All I care about are the real costs, but I include the rest because of these kinds of debates. Air pollution is a ongoing and continuing real cost of fossil fuels.
===
I am intellectually fine with an equalized $0.04/kWh [or whatever level] generated subsidy, if combined with a carbon tax related to the cost of air pollution.
Solar power would nearly disappear if such a rule were adopted. Perhaps some of the new concentrated solar power (Coolearth and sunrgi would continue)
Of course it is all hypothetical (and pointless) because there will not be such a universally enacted policy.
Political realities are also realities.
If solar and wind are the 89 pound weaklings in getting subsidies (except for places that like feed-in tariffs) then so be it. They should try to ally themselves with nuclear companies and get some mutually beneficial policies (like new cap and trade to hinder coal). The coal industry is a mighty adversary with a lot of money to work the system. This is why it is idiotic for pro-renewable people to pick too many enemies. It is not practical. Or in current cases it looks like many pro-renewable people have chosen to ally with coal against nuclear. Even though nuclear is cleaner for the environment.
The map has it wrong: Finland has one reactor under construction (due for commission in 2011) and yet another new reactor under talks, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto
Yes, if you look really closely at the bottom right of the picture just outside the frame, you'll see that the map is from 2003. Which is also given away by the countries shown as part of the EU - there are a few more now.
At the moment individual EU countries certify reactors, and much time and effort is expended on this.
The UK is currently under pressure to find the experienced personnel to certify the reactor designs they are considering, and the delays in certification are also very costly.
The EU could contribute by centralising the certification process, and agreeing communal certification.
The Areva design, for instance, has already passed certification in both France and Finland, and it seems unlikely that the UK duplicating this work will do anything other than increase costs.
All EU countries which intend to build more reactors should work to common standards, avoiding duplication of effort.
This would be an appropriate function of the EU, and the sort of thing it was set up for.
I think this would be a very usefull thing to do. A proper European Nuclear Energy Agency could be in charge of this and other protocols of safe operation. A sort of Europen watchdog.
Dave, if you have the time, please go and drop this idea at Andris' blog.
Done! - With my typing speed I write once and post twice, or it delays things more than multiple certification of reactors! :-)
The comment I left on Andris' blog:
AP is a politician and his job is to be an image maker at least as much as a decision maker.
He must find a way to sell the politically unpopular ideas, such as nuclear power, and this is mostly what he is doing. Personally I think EC is much more concerned by energy security than by GHG emissions. If the public ever faces blackouts, it is the current crop of politicians that will be voted out, future generations can't vote.
Luckily EUs ingenious FF resources are limited, and the options to replace them are just a few. Even the most brain dead european beurocrats are starting to get it that renewables alone can't do it, and that time is running out fast.
That is part of the reason for my proposal earlier in the thread.
To any Eurocrat, the idea of running a licensing authority will appeal, and would in itself help create a constituency for nuclear power, whilst the exclusion of those like the German's who say that they intend to end nuclear power would increase pressure on them to reappraise their unrealistic position.