You need to take into account
a) backup/firming, both day/night and seasonal.
b) lifetime of plant.
c) land use.
a) backup/firming, both day/night and seasonal.
b) lifetime of plant.
c) land use.
What I find interesting is that the system studies I’ve been looking at, from Australia to Denmark and Finland, still don’t find new nuclear improving the least-cost outcome.
And they’re not assuming another Vogtle, Flamanville or Hinkley. They generally give nuclear much more optimistic NOAK or adjusted future costs.
So I’m curious: what system-cost study are you relying on that reaches the opposite conclusion?