That's an opinion. You haven't supplied any supporting data. And retiring reactors from age is not a qualification for "works well enough". And renewables work well enough better.
At this point you're either trolling or arguing with yourself and for some reason replying to me.
I'm not "fearmongering" when I point out the indisputable fact that renewables don't produce nuclear waste. You're also not including the supporting industries that nuclear requires in your costs. And more importantly, you're only looking at the US. Even then, your figures are arguable.
Wikipedia "In 2019 the US EIA revised the levelized cost of electricity from new advanced nuclear power plants going online in 2023 to be $0.0775/kWh before government subsidies"
Wikipedia "The global weighted average levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) of new onshore wind projects added in 2021 fell by 15%, year‑on‑year, to USD 0.033/kWh, while that of new utility-scale solar PV fell by 13% year-on-year to USD 0.048/kWh and that of offshore wind declined 13% to USD 0.075/kWh."
Nuclear may make current economic sense when you ignore the storage issues and the cost of new reactors and the unavoidable increase in uranium importation. Long term it doesn't. Renewables don't have that issue and are already cheaper.
Again, renewables globally are cheaper and safer. Byeeeeeee
No. It's kicking the can down the road. And when there is a real, viable, cleaner, cheaper option already up and running, nuclear is simply not the answer.
You're ignoring solar and hydro. No one said everything has to be wind.
Nuclear costs in the US are at that price because the industry is mature and subsidised by the government significantly. As in France, as reactors age, things get a lot costlier. Maintaining the surplus industries for storage, maintenance, supplies and infrastructure for nuclear are only getting more expensive. And you still haven't solved the waste problem. Renewables have some obstacles, but none that can't be resolved with money. And the end result is cleaner and cheaper.
Which if they were practically feasible, still wouldn't be running for another ten years. Whereas the time and money and resources looking for breakthroughs in that ten years, could easily go to renewables and hey, they don't need a breakthrough solution for nuclear waste. They already work and already are cheaper. Literally the solution. Right there.
Yeah, cos that radiation dispersal from fossil fuels, which is failing to turn us all into mutants since it is so low in concentration compared to nuclear waste, great comparison.
Best check your nuclear storage. It hasn't been doing well of late.
B109 Hanford Nuclear Reservation leaking 1300 gallons a year. 200000 gallons already leaked from 67 tanks leaking.
75% of US nuclear sites have leaks.
Plenty more examples of your "safe" waste storage around.
That's kinda the problem. Money that should be going to renewables is going to nuclear, which won't be effective for many years. Renewables don't have the high cost and requirements and ramp up time nuclear requires.
There is no solution for nuclear waste. It's buried underground it takes millennia to disperse the radiation. Don't think there is anything worse environmentally.
... No, please read up on the topic. It wasn't possible to make profit. The cost of supporting and maintaining the reactors was too much. Without exorbitant electricity prices, there's no profits. So the govt is taking on the debt and will tax to service the debt. Nuclear doesn't add up financially. You need a entire mature industry to service the reactors. Without that, the operating costs get excessive. Nuclear isn't cheap. It only works when the govt subsidises. That equals higher taxes.
Nah boy, you claimed nuclear is the answer, yet no one runs 100% nuclear. You have several examples of renewables already delivering 100%. And none of them are 100% hydro. RENEWABLES, not just hydro, are the clear and unmistakeable winner for energy provision. Fucking around with nuclear has been proven to be too expensive and not maintainable by the best example you have, France.
And no one has resolved the nuclear waste issue which makes nuclear the worst possible environmental choice for energy. I'm not gong to bother to cite anything so self evident. You want to claim otherwise, you shown us your citations.
Unfortunate that they don't have the workers to maintain them, the failure to maintain existing reactors has resulted in blackouts as urgent repairs occur, and the only way to make nuclear seem to work is to nationalise the debt and make everyone pay heavy taxes to cover up the losses. But hey, eight new reactors planned, that's not a goldilocks!
Albania, Iceland, and Paraguay all hit 100% renewable also.
Appreciate you did research, however Tasmania isn't SA. And Bass link runs both ways. It's a grid link, not a power generator.
But if you th8nknthats goldilocks, let's look at France. It's the most successful and pervasive nuclear power. And they are currently moving away from nuclear. Ouch.
Find an elderly friend nearby you can share with?