[flakeoil]

You probably have to look at the whole picture. Having part of the energy generation from nuclear probably makes the total cheaper than having no nuclear. Even if nuclear maybe is the most expensive.

Not having enough energy or having it cut off by a neighbour is very expensive.

[ViewTrick1002]

That is not the case. Grid modelers always land on renewables being cheaper. Except for the cases when the studies start with "assuming cheap and fast to build nuclear power".

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2026/04/17/new-metric-shows-rene...

[vince14]

That is not the case. There are LCOLC, LFSCOE and others which land on renewables being way more expensive. Even without your made up claim about "assuming cheap and fast to build nuclear power".

[ViewTrick1002]

Which are extremely simplified metrics.

Like the LFSCOE study is only using one source of renewables through all weather together with 2020 data on battery costs.

Which is why I linked a recent full system analysis. With Danish data so a vastly harder problem than a place with abundant solar. So tell me what they missed.

They even tilted the study heavily towards nuclear power and assumed that the nuclear costs are 40% lower than Flamanville 3 and 70% lower than Hinkley Point C while modeling solar as 20% more expensive.

Still finding that renewables are vastly cheaper when it comes to meeting a real grid load.

[Moldoteck]

you should be very careful with 'papers' written by people that stayed at the core of Danish antinuclear movement like Henrik Lund (famous “for me, nuclear power is not a dream. It’s a nightmare. My dream is renewable energy”, but there are more interesting turns there, including EnergyPLAN which was criticized a lot for it's nonsense assumptions which I can bet is used here too. It was so severe that the issue was addressed in a peer reviewed publication https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192... ) and a paper that includes frauds like jacobson in citations. These two are famous for citation rings and both are public antinuclear activists.

I can bet they have very "optimistic" estimations for Hydrogen and gas firming on top of the most evident issues adressed in peer review

[ViewTrick1002]

I do notice that you are talking about past papers rather than this current one.

You also link another of the typical studies desperately trying to shove new built nuclear power into contention.

It looks like this: ”If we assume nuclear power is cheap and fast to build”.

Do the same for renewables and storage and the comparison becomes even more lopsided.

[Moldoteck]

I talked about current one too.

I've linked not a "typical studie" but a peer reviewed correction to the mistakes of the original paper.

Ironically we already know the answer about speed. Check out how TWh/y of clean power evolved in Denmark vs UAE with Barakah built by Korea