Should nuclear power be expanded
Worum es bei dieser Frage geht
Nuclear power produces about a tenth of the world’s electricity with very low lifecycle emissions, and it runs regardless of weather. It is also slow and expensive to build: several recent European projects, such as Olkiluoto 3 in Finland and Flamanville 3 in France, came online more than a decade late and far over budget. Countries have gone in opposite directions. Germany shut down its last three reactors in April 2023, while more than twenty countries pledged at COP28 to triple global nuclear capacity by 2050.
The disagreement is less about whether nuclear is low-carbon and more about trade-offs. Is it worth its cost and build time compared to wind, solar and storage? How much does a grid need power that runs regardless of weather? How should risks such as accidents, long-lived waste and proliferation be weighed? Is it better to keep existing plants running, to build new ones, or to wait for smaller modular designs?
Positionen
3 Positionen zu dieser Frage, ohne Rangfolge aufgeführt. Überfliege die Zusammenfassungen und öffne eine, um ihre Begründungen und Belege zu sehen.
Keep existing plants, but don’t build new large ones
Run current reactors as long as regulators judge them safe; put new investment into renewables, storage and grids.
1 Begründung0 Quellen
Am besten belegte Begründung
Extending an existing plant’s life is one of the cheapest sources of low-carbon electricity, while new large reactors have repeatedly come in years late and far over budget.
Yes: build new reactors at scale
Governments back a sustained programme of new large reactors alongside renewables, with state financing or guaranteed prices to lower capital costs.
2 Begründungen0 Quellen
Am besten belegte Begründung
A grid running mostly on wind and solar still needs low-carbon power that works on calm, dark winter days, and nuclear provides that without fossil fuels.
No: phase it out and invest in renewables
Close nuclear plants on a fixed timetable and use the money for wind, solar, storage, grid expansion and flexible demand.
2 Begründungen0 Quellen1 Einwand aus einer anderen Position
Am besten belegte Begründung
Every euro spent on new nuclear buys less emission reduction per year than the same euro spent on wind and solar, because those are cheaper and faster to build.
Wo sie sich widersprechen
Einwände, die eine Position gegen die Begründungen einer anderen erhebt, die meisten zuerst.
Yes: build new reactors at scale erhebt Einwände gegen No: phase it out and invest in renewables
1 Einwand
Offene Fragen
Hier braucht diese Seite noch Hilfe. Jede Aufgabe dauert nur ein paar Minuten.
- Quelle hinzufügen
Quelle angefragt · Yes: build new reactors at scale
Over a full lifecycle, nuclear causes about as few deaths and as little CO₂ per unit of electricity as wind and solar.
- Quelle hinzufügen
Noch keine Quelle · Keep existing plants, but don’t build new large ones
Extending an existing plant’s life is one of the cheapest sources of low-carbon electricity, while new large reactors have repeatedly come in years late and far over budget.
- Quelle hinzufügen
Noch keine Quelle · Yes: build new reactors at scale
A grid running mostly on wind and solar still needs low-carbon power that works on calm, dark winter days, and nuclear provides that without fossil fuels.
- Quelle hinzufügen
Noch keine Quelle · No: phase it out and invest in renewables
Every euro spent on new nuclear buys less emission reduction per year than the same euro spent on wind and solar, because those are cheaper and faster to build.
- Quelle hinzufügen
Noch keine Quelle · No: phase it out and invest in renewables
No country has yet put a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste into operation.
Fehlt eine Position?
Position vorschlagen
Quellen
Noch keine Quellen. Für die erste öffnest du eine Position und wählst unter einer Begründung „Quelle“ → „Quelle hinzufügen“.
Melde dich an, um eine Position vorzuschlagen, Belege beizusteuern oder einer Schwachstelle zu widersprechen.