Imagining that somehow people don't include the storage and connection costs when pointing out that renewables are cheaper. So 2015, when we are in 2025.
Here's the deal: we need all forms of energy to meet growing demand; renewable, thermal, nuclear, hydrogen... all of it. Shutting down nuclear reactors is a great way to ensure a shortfall and all but ensures a need to rely on geopolitical adversaries, like russia.
Sure, but be sure the total cost is being taken into account. The cost to extend a reactors service life needs to be evaluated against the cost of a new source of power ( wind, solar, gas, whatever) and also against the economic cost of not having that powe available.
Comments
Yet costs are different and stable sources are needed.
Second sources when the rest can't deliver.
And for grid stability.
Nuclear works and does that 60-100 years.
You also need more capacity of delivery to also fill the storage.
Is it for 3h 6h a dunkelflaute period of 14 days....
Having no electricity is not a risk any nation takes.
You must be very new to this topic, the economics and politics of it.