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 with 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 output, 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 dependence on gas or coal plants to cover peak demand when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing increases. Large-scale storage systems like 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 😅
It turns out that to meet climate goals, the smartest thing was to shut down precisely the plants that did not emit CO2. Then, to compensate, we turn on 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 is not improving. Good thing political logic never fails.