Lucas K.

Economics of Nuclear Energy

The argument of intermittend power is just a lie, of the nuclear industry. There is no scientific article that says that intermittend power can not be solved, due to fundamental natural laws. Although for nuclear people, it is a fact like E = MC2.

Yes, it is a problem and it will cost money. You have to build a larger power grid and do some other things.

There are several studies that say that you can do renewables. Wind is one of the most intermittend.

But, most renewables are still more expensive than fossil. Why would you solve the intermittend problem, if your fossil alternative is still cheaper?

The German Aerospace showed that large amounts of electricity could come reliable from the Sahara and can be transported to Europe, using CSP. You might not like that, because of other reasons, but it is possible and will be affordable.

So, we have a scientific study that shows the opposite, while the nuclear industry continues to say that renewables are too intermittend, without any scientific backing.

For me, these lies are a reason to doubt more about nuclear power and the statements the industry is telling about them.

I do see future for the nuclear industry, in places where renewables are poor. Such as Sweden and Poland.

By the way, nuclear will become less significant. Total installed new windpower in 2007 was higher than total installed new nuclear power (I did divide the windpower by 3, to get a fair number). In 2013 solar cell production will surpass nuclear, that is predicted (divided by 4 for solar).

So, to the nuke guys, don't be so bullish to renewables, cooperate and look where nuclear has the highest value.

Lucas