The early closure of nuclear power plants in several countries has sparked a technical debate about their real impact on decarbonization goals. While nuclear energy provides baseload electricity without CO2 emissions, its replacement by fossil fuels increases global emissions. Data from the IEA indicates that each closed nuclear gigawatt may require up to 2 GW of renewables to compensate for its constant production, without guaranteeing the same grid stability.
Technology and development: the challenge of maintaining a stable base ⚡
Nuclear generation offers a capacity factor above 85%, far exceeding the 20-30% of solar or wind power. By shutting down operating reactors, firm capacity is lost, and reliance on gas or coal plants to cover demand peaks when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing increases. Storage systems like large-scale batteries are not yet mature enough to replace that continuous power. The energy transition becomes more costly and slower without that nuclear base.
Shutting down nuclear: the brilliant idea to save the planet 😅
Turns out, to meet climate goals, the smartest move was to shut down precisely the plants that didn't emit CO2. Then, to compensate, we fire up coal and gas plants, which do emit. So, instead of reducing emissions, we increase them. A master plan: first we turn off the clean and constant option, then we complain that the climate isn't improving. Good thing political logic never fails.