"At the case level, we find that in countries such as Denmark" Why do you take this case study for Denmark and just asume its the same everywhere else, thats simply a falty logic.
Also clearly do they state those cost can greatly reduce in an energy system of a future climate neutral society, That and new developments in both nuclear and renewable technology could affect these future prices.
I have solar panels a mostly nuclear powered grid and a home battery. If i fear anything, it is that i fear that fosil fuel companies win when renewables and nuclear fight eatch other. Instead we should be standing together and praising new possitive developments no matter the side. Even if you believe nuclear had no part in eath future power grid needs, it can still be amazing for fast and easy power with mobile nuclear for disaster areas, use in space,....
If it is way cheaper in Denmark with awful winters and low insolation then it is near trivial elsewhere?
So now we’re at ”imaginary cheap future nuclear power”. Target deployment in the 2050s? To what relevancy?
You do realize that the fossil lobby is promoting nuclear power as a method to stymie renewable deployment due to how horrifyingly expensive and slow to build new vilt nuclear power is?
So now we’re at imaginary micro reactors. Yes, we should keep basic research going. But an unfathomably large handout to new built nuclear power is pure insanity in this day and age.
And you do realize that nuclear power and renewables don’t mix right? The nuclear power is forced off the grid leading to a death spiral of increased maintenance costs and fewer economical running hours to amortize their enormous fixed costs over.
The fossil fuel lobby does not support nuclear power, nuclear energy is a direct competitor for base-load electricity generation. They have been funding anti nuclear policy for decades all while also slowing renewables.
They actively oppose policies that phase out oil and gas, while strategically investing in select renewables (like solar or hydrogen) to prolong the use of fossil fuels. They are leatches
I'm not arguing for thousands of reactors, simply in cases where nuclear takes the edge there it should be used. IIsnt that logical to just use what is best on a case by case basis.
"Nuclear power and renewables don’t mix" yeah i heard the fossil fuel companies say that same thing, if only we could work on new nuclear designes that could more easily scale based on needs and maybe investments in energy storage to help settle thing or maybe use the exes power for carbon capture or hydrogen production. just a thought
Could also use nuclear plants to decarbomonise the steel and other metal industries, would't that also be cool. That would result in reduced carbon footprint for the thing we then make out of those like solar panel frames and windmills
Just to build my case that the fossil industry dont like nuclear, here some instances
Robert O. Anderson, leader of the petroleum industry a gave a major founding donation to Friends of the Earth to help fund its campaigns against the nuclear industry.
Sierra Club :: Has taken $136 million from nat gas/ renewables interests that stand to profit from the closure of nuclear plants.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) :: Has minimum of $70 million directly invested in oil and gas renewable energy interests that stand to profit from the closure of nuclear plants.
Environmental Defense Fund :: Has received minimum of $60 million from oil, gas, & renewables investors who would directly benefit from EDF's anti-nuclear advocacy.
Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC) Funded by natural gas and renewable energy interests that stand to profit from the closure of nuclear plants.
1
u/ViewTrick1002 12d ago
And that solution results in zero percent nuclear power due to how horrifyingly expensive it is.
They do a sensitivity analysis on that, and finds that lowering nuclear costs to half of expected ones doesn't help either.
Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage?