The bury our heads in the sand part seems to be you projecting.
The research disagrees with you. Whenever new built nuclear power is included in the analysis the results becomes prohibitively expensive.
> 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.
It may cost more, but it is constant generation, and we should invest in as many carbon neutral alternatives as possible that are feasible. The fact that you have a political opposition to it because of conservative opportunists using it for their own agenda is irrelevant.
That is a down right hostile environment for nuclear power which relies on being able to output at 100% 24/7 all year around to only be horrifically expensive.
In the land of infinite resources and infinite time "all of the above" is a viable answer. In the real world we neither have infinite resources nor infinite time to fix climate change.
Lets focus our limited resources on what works and instead spend the big bucks on decarbonizing truly hard areas like aviation, construction, shipping and agriculture.
'Plenty of places' is not all places and you want to completely count out a significant energy generating ability because you are annoyed that it doesn't agree with your politics. If it isn't feasible then they won't build it -- by going around and advocating against it you are doing the same thing that happened in the 70s and 80s -- removing a perfectly valid option for energy that we need and will otherwise be fulfilled in any other way if not provided -- almost always with fossil fuels. If you can guarantee every place for all time will be fine with renewables, I'd like to see it, otherwise, why not step back and let engineers and scientists evaluate instead of grandstanding against an option?
What places aren’t covered by the spectrum with Denmark for higher latitudes and Australia for the near the equator?
I’m advocating against wasting public money on nuclear power pretending it is a solution to climate change.
Have at it with your own money.
I already provided you with the scientists and engineers, but you seem to have completely disregarded them because they did not align with what you wanted.
I can do it again:
The research disagrees with you. Whenever new built nuclear power is included in the analysis the results becomes prohibitively expensive.
> 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.
I agreed that it costs more and read the study you linked. You are having a hard time accepting that some people might have a different opinion than you and are taking it like they are being obstinate. Sorry it costs more, but I don't think we need to be uniformly opposed to a viable option due to cost.
I'm not making this political, I said that the politics are irrelevant. I am not advocating for more nuclear -- I am advocating keeping options on the table regardless of politics or cost, because the issue is important to the progress of our species and condensing things down by referencing single studies and talking points is short-sighted -- we have been down that road, it didn't work, let's not bind our hands needlessly.
in practice, 20 years of walking away from nuclear meant that Germany brought coal-fired stations back last year. I'm sure renewables will stop it happening again in 20 years _this time_.
Germany brought a few coal plants out mothball to prevent the collapse of the French grid when half the French nuclear fleet was off line at the height of the energy crisis.
Which then were promptly mothballed again when the French got their nuclear power under control.
This is not something you can answer clearly, no one can.
I personally would say since renewables (there are many different types of renewable energy sources btw) are so much cheaper and easier to build they are more consistent.
France for example has really shitty nuclear plants that have been falling apart since the 90s - they are not reliable and fixing them is not feasible
The research disagrees with you. Whenever new built nuclear power is included in the analysis the results becomes prohibitively expensive.
> 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 if you want a more southern latitude you have Australia here:
https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2024-25Co...