So rechnet sich Atom­kraft

Außerhalb Deutschlands wird auch über Atomkraft nachgedacht – selbst in Großbritannien, das deutlich mehr Potenzial hat, Energie mit Windkraft zu erzeugen. Die FINANCIAL TIMES (FT) wirft die Frage auf, ob Atomenergie doch noch eine Zukunft im Land hat:

  • As the invasion of Ukraine dragged into its second month, Boris Johnson pitched his solution to a problem plaguing western governments: how to produce enough energy for their countries now Russian gas was off the table. Johnson’s plan was to offer an unexpected lifeline to a divisive industry by promising to build 24 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity over the next three decades, up from just 5.88GW at present.“ – bto: Bei uns würde man sagen, das ist rückwärtsgewandt.
  • Britain is not alone. After years of falling in and out of public and political favour (…) there is talk of a ‚new dawn‘ for nuclear power.“ – bto: Das wird m.E. durch neue Technologien gefördert werden.
  • Successive governments across the political spectrum have for decades vowed to build large new reactor fleets only to fail because of the high costs and complexity of delivering atomic plants, often driving away private sector companies from potential projects.“ – bto: Das stimmt und man muss die Frage stellen, ob es so sein muss oder ob es Hebel gibt, die Kosten zu senken.
  • The goal is to reduce the country’s reliance on dirty gas-fired power plants, the single biggest source of electricity generation, which provides a critical back-up when other weather-dependent methods such as wind and solar are not able to produce enough power.“ – bto: In Deutschland macht das die Kohle, was auch nicht besser ist…
  • If Britain is to realise its dreams to develop more nuclear power, it will have to clear the financial hurdles that held it back in the past. (…) Sunak has promised to set up Great British Nuclear, a new body to oversee the revival of atomic energy in Britain and smooth the development of a new pipeline. This pipeline could include small modular reactors (SMRs), mini nuclear plants that can be built in factories to reduce costs and are being developed by companies including the UK engineering giant Rolls-Royce.“ – bto: Das wird die Zukunft sein, davon sind nicht wenige überzeugt. Es reduziert die Kosten drastisch und es gibt auch keine Abfälle mehr.
  • „(…) in 2006, Blair delivered a stunning U-turn. In a speech to the CBI lobby group, he warned it would be a ‚dereliction of duty‘ for the country not to proceed with a new generation of reactors to meet climate targets and to reduce the country’s gas consumption, which would become increasingly dependent on imports.“
  • That financing agreement for Hinkley, known as ‚contracts for difference‘, ‚made sense when you were working with the Chinese and French governments‘, says the former Tory MP Charles Hendry, an energy minister under the coalition government. ‚But it doesn’t work when you’re trying to deal with private companies . . . others just walked away. They said they couldn’t take the cost on their balance sheets, given it would be 15 years or so before they’d get their money back.‘“ – bto: … womit wir beim Hauptkostenfaktor der AKW sind: die lange Bauzeit verbunden mit relativ hohen Kapitalkosten. Das macht es so teuer.
  • „(…) there are ‚very few‘ companies with the balance sheets, or the will, to take on the risks of constructing a nuclear plant: ‚Our conclusion is particularly in the early stages there has to be substantial government investment.‘“ – bto: … aufgrund der langen Bauzeit. Das macht die Projekte so teuer und damit nicht attraktiv für den privaten Sektor. Hinzu kommen – wie in Deutschland zu sehen – politische Risiken.
  • Fresh hopes of encouraging the development of a new fleet of nuclear reactors — both large and small — now rest on a complex hybrid public-private partnership financing model known as the Regulated Asset Base. Already used for other infrastructure projects such as energy networks and airport terminals, RAB promises potential investors an ‚allowed revenue‘ — overseen by a regulator — from the start of construction, funded via a surcharge on consumer energy bills.“ – bto: Das machen wir ja auch mit den Erneuerbaren.
  • Supporters of the model, such as EDF, argue it significantly cuts the cost of financing because it lowers the interest that builds up during the construction phase and reduces the amount of compounded debt that needs to be serviced and paid off during the station’s lifespan. Financing costs account for roughly two-thirds of the overall cost of a nuclear plant.“ – bto: Das ist natürlich ein Hammer. Die Zinsen dürften auch noch höher sein.
  • The allowed revenue payments continue after the plant is operational. Rather than paying a price for every unit of electricity produced, the model essentially pays for new nuclear power stations to be available. Its supporters say this is well suited to an energy system where weather-dependent renewables form the backbone but other more stable low carbon technologies are still needed when supplies are running low.“ – bto: Hier sagen andere wieder, dass die Atomkraft nicht flexibel genug sei.
  • For long-running nuclear sceptics, the latest attempt at ushering in a new civil nuclear golden age in Britain risks diverting attention and investment away from other technologies, such as wind, solar and storage, which could be delivered sooner to achieve the country’s near-term emissions targets.“ – bto: Das ist auch bei uns das Thema.
  • The UK government is working towards a fivefold increase in offshore wind to 50GW by 2030 — which it claims would be enough to ‚power every home‘ — and to raise solar deployment to 70GW from 14GW by 2035. Renewables supporters claim these could still meet a lot of demand even on calmer, less bright days.“ – bto: Das stimmt natürlich, behebt aber nicht die Dunkelflautenproblematik. (Anmeldung erforderlich): „After years of false dawns, can Britain realise its nuclear ambitions?“, 19. Januar 2023