The new nuclear renaissance on which you report ((Tide is turning in Europe and beyond in favour of nuclear power, 1 June) may well turn out to be like the last frail one due to a set of inconvenient truths.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that renewables are now 10 times more efficient than new nuclear at CO2 mitigation; 92.5% of all new power capacity added worldwide in 2024 was from renewables, with new nuclear virtually nowhere; new nuclear builds are vastly over-cost and over-time; large reactors on offer are the same ones offered 25 years ago – no new designs have been developed this century; since all small modular reactors are in the design stage, industry forecasts must be treated with scepticism; and waste, proliferation and siting problems are all deeply unresolved.
New nuclear has limited operational need and a poor business case. Even for the couple of hundred hours per year of dunkelflaute (low wind and low sun), it is possible to sustain a reliable power system by expanding renewable energy, rapid growth and modernisation of the electricity grid, faster interconnection, using electricity far more efficiently, smart energy management and deployment of today’s cost-effective storage technology.
And, by the way, it turns out that Sizewell C new nuclear station would be almost entirely cut off by climate-driven storm-surge floodwater at least once a year by the time it’s built. According to UK government global data, it takes up to 17 years to build just one nuclear station. New nuclear would be much too late and far too costly for the climate and energy crises.
Dr Paul Dorfman
Bennett scholar, Bennett Institute for Innovation and Policy Acceleration, University of Sussex; chair, Nuclear Consulting Group
