In a recent study, researchers from the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), the Stockholm School of Economics (SSE), and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) questioned the planned development of new nuclear capacities in the energy strategies of the United States and certain European countries.
What is this supposed to prove wrong exactly?
That nuclear produces more MW/HR than wind at an exponential rate.
https://www.ans.org/news/article-1462/wind-power-and-nuclear-power/
“Capacity factor is the feature highlight of this info-graphic poster. To make a graphic representation of how this compares to one nuclear power plant rated at 1154 megawatts (MW), this shows the full count of all 2077 2-MW wind turbines in a 24"x36” poster. This is what would be required to match the nuclear power plant output even if this array of turbines could hypothetically run continuously at only 25 percent of its rated capacity."
I’m giving you sources. You can downvote but I don’t see your numbers reflected in any study.
The cost per MWh produced over a year, with grid + storage costs, is the number that matters. Wind and solar combined are much cheaper than nuclear there. For a source look that the most recent csiro gencost report. It’s produced by the Australian national science body and basically says that in the best case if smrs reach large scale adoption and operate at a very high capacity factor… They’re still way too expensive for the power they produce when compared to wind and solar with transmission and storage.
To get off fossil fuels faster it needs to be economic, and nuclear isn’t economic. Renewables are
But why would you not use them in tandem when nuclear produces energy 24/7 and the others dont? What do we do if there isn’t sufficient wind for days? What happens when the sun is no longer focused on our hemisphere? I’ll look up the study but I don’t see a reason to axe one over the other.
Because we could use the money spent on nuclear to build more renewables and supporting infra (storage and transmission) than if we also built nuclear. The renewables will snap be finished and replacing the fossil fuels a lot sooner than the 10-15 years for a nuclear reactor.
If you look up studies into it you need a lot less storage than you’d expect to run a fully renewable grid, as the scale of the grid stabilises it to weather fluctuations. Winter also is a problem that can be overcome. That gencost report is a decent starting point, there are plenty of other studies into it though. The low cost of storage is also especially true if you’re looking at the first 99% of the grid.
Maybe those studies are wrong and nuclear would be economic for that last 1%. However, if we can get to 99% years earlier by just building renewables then discover that it’s harder than expected to get to 100 (somewhat unlikely, especially as more storage tech is developed), we can build nuclear then. The net carbon from getting off the majority of fossil fuels years earlier will probably make it the better decision anyway.
Also just noting that my views are based on what I’ve read about Australia so you should also find peoperly researched cost analysis for your country. Also for renewables to work well in smaller countries they’ll need to develop more interconnects their neighbours etc.
Okay? I never said anything contrary to that though? So what’s your point?