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.
This article is a joke of renewable propaganda. It makes hypothesis on the worst nuclear trends, and project the renewable trends, ignoring that renewables need fossile to provide consistent output. They also question each and every analysis that pretend nuclear would be good.
This is an anti-nuclear shit post.
If only we had invented energy storage!
Also not even an advantage.
France has nuclear capacity for 550TWh/yr at nameplate for a load of 420-500TWh/yr and several neighboring countries that let them use hydro for storage.
They still produce 40-50TWh from dispatchable sources.
If storage is impossible, then we better build more wind and solar instead of nuclear.
Fiction land storage does not count.
Be specific and don’t lie, Lithium is a plausible solution, their not enough in the world, it does not last long enough or have high enough capacity to make any sensible business case beyond fringe cases not storage for multiple days
Yet studies show that renewables decarbonise faster and the only way for nuclear to complete is basically in a majority renewables grid. Oh, and also be 25% cheaper. Which is not ideal.