[datadeft]

Most people do not understand this and think that we can reall talk about nuclear vs solar when we really need to talk about an energy mix where you pick one point (for example you pick nuclear or solar) and the rest depends on this choice.

Than you can calculate the price.

[scrlk]

To add, it's worth reading the Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity paper: https://iaee2021online.org/download/contribution/fullpaper/1...

Energy mix is key: the cost of 100% dependency on intermittent renewables is extremely high.

Going for 95% dependency on intermittent renewables with the remainder being filled in by low-cost dispatchable generation halves system costs (see table 6, pg. 21).

[ViewTrick1002]

So you've managed to cherry pick the one study showing nuclear power in any kind of possible light. Typical.

You do know that the study is only applicable to running your off-grid cabin from a sole source and battery storage based on 2020 costs. The study also assumes 100% uptime for nuclear power.

It does not deal with demand shifts, it does not deal with transmission, it does not deal with backup power.

It also managed to finds a nuclear LFSCOE of $106/MWh. Even though it doesn't adapt to peaks or breakdowns when Hinkley Point C sits at $170/MWh when running at full tilt for 35 years.

Whenever we do quality research on the subject the results end up being that nuclear power is horrifically expensive.

See for example:

See the recent study on Denmark which found that nuclear power needs to come down 85% in cost to be competitive with renewables when looking into total system costs for a fully decarbonized grid, due to both options requiring flexibility to meet the grid load.

> Focusing on the case of Denmark, this article investigates a future fully sector-coupled energy system in a carbon-neutral society and compares the operation and costs of renewables and nuclear-based energy systems.

> The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources.

> However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour.

> For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192...

Or the same for Australia if you went a more sunny locale finding that renewables ends up with a grid costing less than half of "best case nth of a kind nuclear power":

https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2024-25Co...

[scrlk]

I think you misinterpreted my comment. I'm advocating for an energy mix where the majority of energy is supplied by intermittent renewables with a small amount of low-cost (i.e. not nuclear) dispatchable generation. This avoids the extortionate "last mile" of costs when utilising 100% intermittent renewables.

The Clean Power 2030 report from NESO came to a similar conclusion. See Insights from our clean power sensitivities, pg 53: https://www.neso.energy/document/346651/download

[dalyons]

95% renewables would be incredible, I’ll take it :)

[datadeft]

Thanks a lot, this is a must read indeed.