The original article can be read as “Schlumpfs graphic 126” in the online Nebelspalter of 30 September 2024.
A week ago (see here), I reported on the new ETH study on the state of nuclear energy commissioned by the Swiss government (Manera A., Pautz A. et al, “Technology Monitoring of Nuclear Energy”, 2024, see here, under “Monitoring Nuclear Energy”). Today, I am supplementing the topics covered in my post, “Worldwide Development”, “Construction Times” and “Costs” of nuclear power plants, with nuclear energy facts from this study on “Subsidies”, “New Reactor Concepts”, “Fuel Availability” and “Environmental Impact”. The report is a real treasure trove for refuting frequently made false statements by opponents of nuclear power.
What is important:
– In the EU and the US, many more energy subsidies go to new renewable energies than to nuclear energy.
– The development of many concepts for future SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) and new mini-reactors is well advanced – new prototypes are expected in the next few years.
– Fuels for nuclear power plants are available for centuries – with new technology, they will even last for thousands of years.
– In a comprehensive life cycle assessment, nuclear power comes out very well.
1. Subsidization
At the end of my last post (see here), I made a cost comparison between the most expensive European nuclear power plant to date in Olkiluoto and the largest Alpine solar plant in Switzerland, “AlpinSolar”. The result was that solar power is three times more expensive than nuclear power. I did not mention that “AlpinSolar” was only built thanks to federal subsidies of 640,000 francs and a 20-year deficit guarantee from the discounter “Denner” – otherwise the project would have failed. These subsidies were still well below the current federal guarantees of up to 60 percent of the investment costs of high-Alpine solar plants – otherwise no investors would be found for such projects.
EU subsidizes renewable energy eleven times more than nuclear energy
But what is the ratio of subsidies for nuclear energy compared to subsidies for new renewable energies in Western industrialized countries? The ETH report contains the following graphic, which shows the subsidy shares of different energy sources in the European Union from 2015 to 2022:

The numbers in the graphic show the amount of annual energy subsidies in billions of euros. The share of nuclear energy is orange (Nuclear), the share of new renewables (RES, Renewable Energy Sources) is green. From 2015 to 2022, subsidies for nuclear power peaked at 7.6 billion euros in 2021. Compared to the 86 billion for renewables in the same year, this is a good eleven times less. And this pattern also applies to the US. In both regions, energy-specific subsidies for new renewables are significantly higher than for nuclear energy.
Germany pays “subsidies” for the shutdown of nuclear power plants
A revealing detail of the EU figures shown: in 2021, almost 80 percent of the 7.6 billion euros for nuclear energy were distributed in France and Germany alone. It seems obvious that France, with its many nuclear power plants, accounted for 44 percent. But where did the 35 percent go in Germany, which was on the verge of finally phasing out nuclear power? The subsidies were primarily paid out as compensation to nuclear power plant operators for the early decommissioning of their plants: the destruction of a well-functioning electricity system thus triggered further “subsidy money” – an absurd perversion of the system.
2. New reactor concepts
The ETH report presents the current state of development of new reactor types in detail. On the one hand, it deals with small modular reactors (SMR) with an output of up to 300 megawatts – Gösgen has 1000 megawatts – and on the other hand, with so-called microreactors with an output of up to about 10 megawatts.
Ten SMRs are already in operation in Russia and China, with several more under construction or awaiting planning permission. In addition to the water-cooled SMR, there are various designs from France, the UK and the US that are the most advanced for use in Europe by 2030. The main advantages of SMRs are lower initial capital costs, shorter construction times, increased flexibility in terms of load control and greatly improved safety concepts.
Cheap autonomous microreactors from the factory
The development of new microreactors is at least as interesting – currently mainly in the USA. These are small reactors that are completely manufactured in a factory and transported to the place of use in standardized transport containers by ship, rail or truck. There they can supply electricity autonomously for 5 to 10 years without maintenance and without replacing the fuel. With very low capital costs, minimal space requirements, predictable construction times and simpler approval procedures due to the very low radiation risk, their range of possible applications should be very diverse.
3. Availability of fuel
The next graphic shows how widespread natural uranium reserves are:

According to the ETH report, global uranium deposits are sufficient to operate all of the world’s existing nuclear power plants for the next few centuries. For Switzerland, the experts see no risks to the supply of nuclear fuel in the long term. In addition, by the second half of this century, reactor technology will have developed to the point where new fuels with a much greater energy potential can be used in a closed fuel cycle. This will extend the availability of nuclear fuel for many thousands of years.
4. Environmental impact of nuclear energy
A life cycle assessment (LCA) of different electricity producers quantifies and compares their environmental impacts over their entire life cycle. The impacts on climate change, i.e. the balance of greenhouse gas emissions, play an important role in this. The next chart shows the extent of these emissions for all electricity producers in grams of CO2equivalent per kilowatt hour:

The electricity producers listed in the graphic are, from left to right: hard coal and natural gas, first without and then with the inclusion of carbon capture and storage (CCS), water (hydro), nuclear energy (nuclear), concentrated solar power (CSP), photovoltaics (PV) and wind. A range of values between minimum and maximum is always displayed, with the blue bar indicating the average value in each case.
Nuclear energy has the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of all electricity producers.
Nuclear power is at the top of the list of electricity producers with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions, with emissions between 5 and 6 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour. The closest are small hydroelectric power plants (6-11 grams) and onshore wind farms (8-16 grams). However, rooftop-mounted poly-silicon solar panels emit 23 to 83 grams – so such PV systems have 4 to 14 times higher greenhouse gas emissions than nuclear power plants.
Even when other environmental impact criteria are taken into account (airborne and water pollutants, resource consumption, radioactive radiation, land use, influence on cancer rates), nuclear energy often comes out on top. Of course, there are still uncertainties or even inconsistencies in the assessment of some of these criteria. Nevertheless, nuclear energy gets very good marks in terms of environmental impact in the research to date.
Plenty to eat for nuclear power
Anyone looking for scientifically sound answers to the fake news of nuclear opponents will find plenty of food for thought in this new ETH report: nuclear energy is in demand worldwide, it is cost-effective, and construction times are acceptable given the efficiency of the plants. Soon there will be small reactors that can be bought off the shelf. Nuclear power deserves government subsidies as a reliable winter electricity producer, its fuel will last for centuries and its environmental impact is lower than that of almost all other forms of electricity generation.
0 comments on “New ETH study refutes fake news of nuclear opponents”