I didn't. The post I was responding to compared solar + batteries to nuclear.
Completely incorrectly, it turns out.
Realistic studies show that grids including nuclear are a LOT cheaper.
> There's no point having the grid be an ideological purity test
The only ones who are doing this are the anti-nuclear ideologues.
> Because the problem for nuclear is that it never solved dispatchability.
That is just comically wrong. Intermittent renewables are not dispatchable. Nuclear is.
System costs have been the central argument against renewables ever since they became competitive on LCOE. Which is why energy-system researchers have spent years developing, validating, and publishing models that account for hourly balancing, storage, transmission, flexibility, and sector coupling.
From Denmark to Australia system cost studies find renewable energy systems vastly cheaper than if involving new nuclear. Even when sensitivity testing very low nuclear costs.
The problem with nuclear is that it still needs the same firming to match an actual grid load. It still needs storage and gas turbines.
A smaller quantity than for renewable grids sure. But given how expensive new nuclear is it doesn't matter in the end.
Here's the Danish study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422...
And Australian:
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Ele...
Please tell me how they aren't "realistic".
Your final comment conflates dispatchability with operational flexibility.
Nuclear output is controllable, and French reactors load follow. Although using a fleet controlling which reactor takes which day, and managing their fueling cycle so they can do it.
Conventional nuclear plants are economically optimized for high utilization, cannot start from shutdown on short notice, and don't eliminate the need for capacity that can respond to sudden shortages, demand peaks, and unexpected outages.
There is a significant difference between supplying dependable energy throughout the year and economically covering the relatively few hours when residual demand becomes exceptionally high.
As an example, the Australian CSIRO "study" you cite is deeply flawed.
1. Incorrect lifetime assumptions
It assumes nuclear power plants only last 30-35 years. In reality they last 80-100 years. So they are actually 3x cheaper than reported. Same trick as used in the infamous Fraunhofer ISE "study"
2. Incorrect assumptions about sunk costs
The report incorrectly treats already spent capital costs (on renewable infrastructure) as "free".
3. Underestimation of system costs
The report incorrectly averages metrics over longer time periods and thus vastly underestimates the costs of intermittency.
4. Incorrect capacity factors for nuclear.
Capacity factors between 50-80% are assumed. In reality even the world-wide average is over 80% and well-run fleets like in the US are over 90%. Again, same shady trick used in the infamous Fraunhofer ISE "study"
So same-old same-old. And as I said before: not going to debunk every single instance of always-the-same disinformation.
Denmark is now looking at nuclear, because the renewables-only strategy has failed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateShitposting/comments/1xlxdzh...
We also have, wind, firming and you know. Relying on fossil fuels for the once a decade emergency.
There's no point having the grid be an ideological purity test when we still have agriculture, aviation, shipping, construction, chemicals, heavy industry and so on to decarbonize.
System studies from Australia to Denmark are converging on finding that new nuclear makes the system vastly more expensive. Even when assuming your "NOAK" costs. Because no one would be stupid enough to build new nuclear at Vogtle or Flamanville prices.
Because the problem for nuclear is that it never solved dispatchability. It always relied on fossil fuels to solve the hard times.
You raise the floor, but that's quite meaningless when the hard times are far far above the yearly baseload requirement. Even when factoring in scheduling maintenance around it. And theen adding that your nuclear fleet may be like the Swedish or French one and have half the capacity offline when it is needed.