"Zu teuer und gefährlich: #Atomkraft ist keine Option für eine klimafreundliche Energieversorgung" schließt das DIW
https://doi.org/10.18723/diw_wb:2019-30-1
Wirtschaftlich: Unter allen Annahmen zu den unsicheren Variablen ist Atomkraft in keinem Fall rentabel.
Und sie ist nicht versicherbar.
Über den ganzen Lebenszyklus (Bau, Betrieb, Rückbau der Anlage, Uranabbau, Brennelemente Herstellung) ermittelte eine Metastudie einen Mittelwert für 66 Gramm CO2-Äquiv/kWh.
@kravietz sorry I don't get it. If it is less expensive and faster to build more regenerative energy "plants" based on solar power than continue to use or build more nuclear plants, we should do it. And that is what it looks like to me today. But this needs to a discussion what is to be included in the "cost" part of the calculation.
We're really dealing with four parameters here. Three are physical/engineering - CO2 intensity (gCO2eq/kWh), surface power density (W/m2), capacity factor (%). One is economic - LCOE ($/kWh).
Nuclear has very good first three but high LCOE.
PV has low LCOE but poor capacity factor and surface power density, similar on-shore wind.
Off-shore wind has slightly better capacity factor but LCOE comparable with nuclear.
