Initially, the European Commission proposed two lists, one of which included so-called “strategic” technologies subject to a 40% domestic manufacturing target and fast-track permitting procedures.
However, this list did not feature nuclear power, a move that sparked outrage among its advocates on social media, particularly in France.
However, things took a new turn on Tuesday.
The compromise list now includes renewable energy technologies, nuclear fission and fusion technologies, energy storage, carbon capture and storage (CCS), hydrogen transport infrastructure, and electrolysers, among others.
I’m not. Batteries are cheap and only getting cheaper. With sodium batteries they are also made from abundant materials.
There are no rare earths in lithium-ion or sodium-ion batteries. Also do you think uranium grows on trees? We are running out of cheap uranium fast, even without new plants.
For long term storage we’ll need hydrogen and methane. So we still need to build the facilities to produce them. But we have more than enough gas caverns already. So storing them won’t be a problem.
Also finally, just to be clear, i’m not against renewables, I think they will play a key role in decarbonisation, but I think that nuclear power makes decarbonisation dramatically easier. I see nuclear providing a reliable baseload (20 - 40%) to reduce the overall need for storage, while renewables cover the rest.
We have a reliable supply of Uranium. See my other comment. Sodium Ion batteries do offer some progress, but actually scaling up extraction and production both of sodium and lithium ion batteries and the materials required for their construction just for decarbonisation of transport alone is an immense challenge, and we don’t have reliable supplies in Europe. If we also have to completely decarbonise energy production, and everybody wants to do this, then we will encounter a bottleneck very quickly.
And you’d be right to say Hydrogen Storage will be key, but the problem is that Hydrogen Storage has relatively low efficiencies.