[ViewTrick1002]

And what happens to a nuclear plant that is essentially only fixed costs when their capacity factor craters due to renewable competition?

Followed by attacking the author rather than the context, followed by a "what about".

You truly lost the plot here. You do realize that right?

Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage?

[Moldoteck]

It happens the same as with any other project, even renewables.

It's not an attack on the author. What I've written can be easily verified. The author IS the chief editor of the journal the paper was published in. The author is one of the founding members of DK antinuclear movement. His previous paper was subject to correction due to details that were omitted which skewed the final results. The paper does assume dirt cheap H2 firming which is not bounded to reality in any sense whatsoever. Nuclear ban in DK DID led to it becoming one of the largest coal consumers at that time.

You don't need to ask this stupid question at each post. It'll not change the simple fact that DK and DE have far worse emissions than France and Sweden. It'll not change the fact Germany plans gas expansion for firming renewables.

Maybe I should ask you the question why are you so afraid of nuclear combined with renewables when history proved this pathway gives the best results? I can't think of anything more than blind hate

[ViewTrick1002]

You mean like this Australian coal plant forced to become a peaker or be decomissioned?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-13/australian-coal-plant...

Yes. That is the issue. How do you suggest the nuclear plants will survive in such an environment when they are already today, early in the renewable disruption, facing headwinds?

Then more just attacking the author. Then trying to discredit this paper by an old one, and you clearly haven't read the criticism.

The criticism said:

1. Assuming new built nuclear power is cheap and fast to build then you are wrong!!!!

But you never read further than the headline did you?

Then you go on to mindless complaining. Yes, it would have been amazing if Denmark and Germany built nuclear power half a century ago and decarbonized their grids.

But we live in 2026 and there's no point crying over spilled milk.

> nuclear combined with renewables when history proved this pathway gives the best results?

Which is revionist history. As shown by the French nuclear plants struggling to cope with an increasingly renewable grid. Same with the Swedish ones where 4 reactors has shut down due to market conditions in recent years. They were hemorrhaging money.

You are looking at an incredibly short period of time where half a century old paid off plants are still around and renewables haven't completely disrupted the French grid yet.

Please do explain how you would fit a nuclear plant into this grid mix:

https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=7d&...

That is where all grids globally are headed in less than 10 years time. Before a single nuclear projected started today is completed.

Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage? Is your income dependent on the nuclear industry?