Getting rid of all nuclear industry was a strategic mistake, but not in terms of electricity generation. Using nuclear energy to generate electricity has never been and will never be economical.
It was a strategic mistake to ditch that gigantic reserve of know-how, equipment and trained personnel, which could have been used for pursuing a military use of nuclear energy, which unfortunately has proven to be necessary due to an ally turned enemy.
This. It makes sense for France and UK to maintain a few nuclear power plants and maybe even build one or two new ones because they are part of the military supply chain for nukes. For the rest of the EU, don’t waste money on new nuclear plants.
Well, unfortunately it seems to be prudent for preferably the EU itself, or its members, to pursue nuclear deterrent, thanks to the USA turning from a somewhat reliable ally into an enemy. The UK isn’t a member of the EU anymore and has proven not very trustworthy either, and France alone doesn’t have a very big nuclear deterrent. Also, it would just be fair to share some of the risks and burdens associated with maintaining such a necessary evil.
In fact, I highly doubt that any country that ever ran a large scale nuclear power programme did so because they actually believed it was an economical way of producing electrical energy. It has always been a know-how, equipment, and manpower pool for maintaining the ability to build a military nuclear programme in short order. Of course that tends to be not very palatable for the public, so it was preferred to tell them the lie of a clean and economical electricity source instead.
Getting rid of all nuclear industry was a strategic mistake, but not in terms of electricity generation. Using nuclear energy to generate electricity has never been and will never be economical.
It was a strategic mistake to ditch that gigantic reserve of know-how, equipment and trained personnel, which could have been used for pursuing a military use of nuclear energy, which unfortunately has proven to be necessary due to an ally turned enemy.
Germany and the Netherlands have what is needed to build bombs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urenco_Group
This. It makes sense for France and UK to maintain a few nuclear power plants and maybe even build one or two new ones because they are part of the military supply chain for nukes. For the rest of the EU, don’t waste money on new nuclear plants.
Well, unfortunately it seems to be prudent for preferably the EU itself, or its members, to pursue nuclear deterrent, thanks to the USA turning from a somewhat reliable ally into an enemy. The UK isn’t a member of the EU anymore and has proven not very trustworthy either, and France alone doesn’t have a very big nuclear deterrent. Also, it would just be fair to share some of the risks and burdens associated with maintaining such a necessary evil.
In fact, I highly doubt that any country that ever ran a large scale nuclear power programme did so because they actually believed it was an economical way of producing electrical energy. It has always been a know-how, equipment, and manpower pool for maintaining the ability to build a military nuclear programme in short order. Of course that tends to be not very palatable for the public, so it was preferred to tell them the lie of a clean and economical electricity source instead.