Remix.run Logo
sndcr 4 hours ago

It’s not either or, you need both. We haven’t solved energy storage so renewables can’t be the only source of energy. If you look at Value-Adjusted Levelized Cost of Electricity (VALCOE) it changes the calculation quite a bit. We have negative energy prices a few times per year in Europe as it is.

ViewTrick1002 3 hours ago | parent [-]

We’ve solved both. The research has moved on from VALCOE to whole system modeling. Including transmission, storage, backup, firming and modeling it hour by hour.

Studies are converging on renewable energy systems being cheaper in climates ranging from Australia to the Nordics:

Some recent ones:

Finland, 2025: nuclear scenarios 71–84% higher system cost; unrestricted least-cost optimization builds zero new nuclear. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422...

Denmark, 2026: system-level LCOE including storage, flexibility and system integration; renewables substantially cheaper than nuclear. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422...

Australia, CSIRO + AEMO GenCost 2025–26: whole-system modelling including transmission, storage and firming; renewables + storage remain the lowest-cost net-zero pathway. https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Ele...

Flip-per 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm interested in why people think this is wrong, in case this is the reason for the downvotes.

K3UL 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Because what is true for these 3 countries is not true for all countries. There are counter-examples where nuclear is cheaper.

In most countries which don't have the advantages of Australia or Finland, you do need a mix as the OP was saying

teamonkey 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

What is Italy lacking? Sun? Wind?

Flatterer3544 17 minutes ago | parent [-]

Usually comes down to industry energy needs.