"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.
There are prospective technologies that might improve capacity factor for wind and solar (power-to-gas, hydrogen, batteries etc) but they are not there today on industrial scale.
Today they are just as prospective as nuclear fusion, which also promises very high power density and zero waste... but it's not here yet.
Not in Europe. Due to very low surface power density RE require plenty of one non-renewable resource we don't have much: land surface.
This is why wind & PV plants are facing opposition in UK, France, Norway and Germany, and why Germany plans to rely on fossil gas for the next 30 years.
@kravietz Again I do not seem to understand your point. An important factor would be the total amount of energy that can "won" via a method. And renewable energy sources seem to have a very high potential here and are faster to build up, so their lower LCOE and CO2 intensity is more important than surface power density or capacity factor.