> I've never seen that anyone has been able to document this claim.
Are you aware that the French ministry of environment justifies closing Fessenheim because nuclear emits too much greenhouse gases ?
And that some heads of EELV, the "green" french party, don't know what a life-cycle analysis is (or purposedly pretends not to know ) and asks for closing nuclear plants to be in line with the Paris 2015 climate deal ?
This helps figure out how rational the current moves against nuclear are.
> And though you could probably get the cost down to where it was before, the cost of renewables and storage is dropping very rapidly. It seems likely that renewables will reach a price point that nuclear could never catch up to, way before the cost of nuclear will be reasonable again. And since renewables will be so cheap, most countries will want at least 50% of energy to be renewable. And that will make covering the remaining 50% with nuclear more expensive, since you'd need more advanced and expensive load balancing power plants to support the renewables.
Without nuclear, with what life-cycle kgCO2e/kWh result, and when ?
In a post fossil fuel economy, and assuming CO2 from concrete manufacture is captured, CO2 emissions are zero.
The question of CO2 emission before then, as fossil fuels are being phased out, is less important. During that process the better question is how much CO2 emission can be avoided per $ invested. By that metric, renewables will be much better than new nuclear.
Are you aware that the French ministry of environment justifies closing Fessenheim because nuclear emits too much greenhouse gases ?
And that some heads of EELV, the "green" french party, don't know what a life-cycle analysis is (or purposedly pretends not to know ) and asks for closing nuclear plants to be in line with the Paris 2015 climate deal ?
This helps figure out how rational the current moves against nuclear are.