How much nuclear energy would be needed to replace European natural gas?
The scale of the challenge is large, but doable
The figure above shows the net energy consumption between nuclear power and natural gas (former minus the latter, expressed in Exajoules, data is 2020 from BP).
The data show that most countries in Europe rely much more on natural gas than they do nuclear energy. The annual balance in favor of gas is the greatest in Germany, and will get larger by about 0.5 EJ when its last 3 nuclear power plants are shut this year.
To get a sense of scale, how much nuclear energy would be required to replace all European natural gas?
Using France as a model, more than 250 nuclear reactors would be needed, implying something like 50 to 150 new nuclear power plants, depending on the capacity of each plant and number of reactors within each.
This seems like a big number. But it is also the equivalent of five times France’s current nuclear capacity, which was brought online over a period of about 15 years. So it is certainly doable, as it has been done before.
These numbers have obvious current geopolitical significance, but they also tell us something about the magnitude of the challenge of decarbonization. Achieving net-zero carbon dioxide means eliminating all natural gas emissions. I haven’t seen any serious policy proposals, from any government, for doing so. Nuclear energy is an obvious option for meeting at least some of this challenge.
Thank you for reading The Honest Broker! I love writing it and sharing with thousands of readers around the world. What sustains the effort are voluntary subscriptions from paying supporters. If you are enjoying the newsletter and would like to join supporters of The Honest Broker, please consider becoming a paid supporter by selecting among the three options. If not, that’s fine also.
Paying subscribers to The Honest Broker receive posts with pointers to recommended readings, occasional direct emails with PDFs of my books and paywalled writings and the opportunity to participate in conversations on the site. I am also looking for ways to add value to those who see fit to support my work.
There are three subscription models:
1. The annual subscription: $80 annually
2. The standard monthly subscription: $8 monthly - which gives you a bit more flexibility.
3. Founders club: $500 annually, or another amount at your discretion - for those who have the ability or interest to support my work at a higher level.
Thanks for calculating this BUT Nuclear has proven to be:
(Always over budget, while Renewables keep dropping in price, even with the addition of better storage)
(In 2013 Canada, PM Harper raised liability limits to $500M - expected settlement of Lac Mégantic rail crash. Who’d pay to move PA NY ON & QC if Three Mile Island had been uncontrolled?)
(After 76 years, how do we safely store radioactive
- concrete & steel 10,000 years
- spent fuel 300,000 years)
(Nuclear builds worldwide are over budget/bankrupt while Renewable costs fall. SMRs are 2 decades from use.)
(Witness the current Russian invasion of Ukraine and pray for military mercy.)
“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad” (proud!)
Other interesting calculations would be:
How much Renewable Energy is needed to replace Nuclear Electricity?
Ditto for FossilFuel?
Methinks we are in a quandary IF the CAGW people are correct that CO2 is The cause of worldwide regional ClimateChange.
Part of the problem in Europe, is plans to replace gas with unreliable windmills instead of the sensible and reliable solution of Nuclear power.