European Union, member states and Agencies

[SolarisKenzo]

Historic EU-UK deal on Gibraltar status.

Gibraltar border control to be handed to Europe

Britons will have to show passports to Spanish or EU guards when they land on the Rock after deal agreed

www.telegraph.co.uk

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1932812651702165617

 

[SolarisKenzo]

EU unveils 241 billion euros (280 billion dollars) nuclear expansion plan.
The new strategy aims for a more than 50% increase in nuclear energy production, going from the current 98GW (EU only, the actual EU grid is also connected to UK, Switzerland and will be connected to Ukraine) to 109GW from large Gen III+ reactors (the plan also "selected" 3 designs: EPR-II, AP1000 and APR) and circa 50GW from SMRs.

EU's €241 Billion Plan for Nuclear Energy Expansion by 2050 - News and Statistics - IndexBox

The EU plans a €241 billion investment to expand nuclear energy capacity from 98 to 109 gigawatts by 2050, involving new financial strategies to attract private investors amid divided member state opinions.

www.indexbox.io

 

[kato]

EU unveils 241 billion euros (280 billion dollars) nuclear expansion plan.

There is no EU-wide strategy or plan for nuclear expansion. Those 241 billion are the required investment to realize both renewal and planned expansion of nuclear capacity (to those 109 GW, although considerable sums are simply for replacement of current capcaity) by member states of the European Union.

The European Commission simply reported on these numbers in their 8th "Nuclear Illustrative Programme" (PINC), a regular report they have to publish in accordance with Article 40 of the EURATOM treaty. Publishing this report does not mean the EC is planning, financing or even endorsing any of this. The publishing is part of the European Commission's role in ensuring nuclear safety in Europe.

Commission assesses nuclear investment needs by 2050 in view of decarbonisation and competitiveness goals

Delivering Member States\' plans regarding nuclear energy will require significant investments, of around €241 billion until 2050, both for lifetime extensions of existing reactors and the construction of new large-scale reactors.

ec.europa.eu

That diagram in your post is from a pro-nuclear, anti-green lobby group with an aim to redirect subsidies for renewable energy production towards new nuclear power plants.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

That diagram in your post is from a pro-nuclear, anti-green lobby group with an aim to redirect subsidies for renewable energy production towards new nuclear power plants.

How can a pro-nuclear lobby also be anti-green?

 

[Feanor]

How can a pro-nuclear lobby also be anti-green?

I don't know how it is in Europe but in the US the same political agents advocating for fossil fuels and arguing against green energy and global warming also often speak in favor of nuclear energy. My suspicion is that this has to do with the anti-nuclear stance of so-called green movements historically.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I don't know how it is in Europe but in the US the same political agents advocating for fossil fuels and arguing against green energy and global warming also often speak in favor of nuclear energy. My suspicion is that this has to do with the anti-nuclear stance of so-called green movements historically.

Are they explicitly opposing green energy or just advocating for non-green as backups?
I personally very much support green energy - a nuclear baseline and combustibles as emergency backup, which some would definitely see as anti-green.

 

[Feanor]

Are they explicitly opposing green energy or just advocating for non-green as backups?

I haven't the foggiest. However you asked a specific question regarding how someone can be anti-green and pro-nuclear energy. This is not an uncommon political position. It's a nonsensical position, but not nearly the most nonsensical position we see in politics these days.

I personally very much support green energy - a nuclear baseline and combustibles as emergency backup, which some would definitely see as anti-green.

Well then... what do you mean when you ask "how"? Your statement implies you understand that this position exists.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

I dont understand how can someone be anti-green and pro-nuclear at the same time.
I mean, I know usually the "greens" are anti-nuclear, but my guess is that they are not able to understand basic math and have zero scientific background.
Their knowledge of nuclear power usually comes from greenpeace videos on Chernobyl or from episodes of The Simpsons.

Nuclear energy is carbon-free, the only continuative and programmable source that doesnt need fossil fuels (yes, hydro of course, but hydro is limited by geography and water supply. Geothermic is just basically irrelevant in most places.) and the amount of energy generated by nuclear power in the same space is several orders of magnitude higher than renewables.

 

[John Fedup]

I dont understand how can someone be anti-green and pro-nuclear at the same time.

I guess the the quote "you can't fix stupid" explains the situation. It also largely explains the current US political environment.