> but trying to go 100% renewables is very expensive.
Any source for that claim? I mean, yes it’s not exactly cheap. But neither are the alternatives. Expensive compared to what?
I’ve seen several studies that indicate that going 100% renewable will be cheaper than the energy infrastructure we have today. Either in a 2050-perspective with the technology/prices we have today (Marc Z Jacobsen). Or on a shorter timeline assuming continues technology and price improvements (Tony Seba).
> Sadly, the final nuclear reactors were shut down last year.
I think it remains to be seen which path was the right decision. France has recently had some very expensive and long outages. They had to import power from Germany for long stretches during the energy crisis. France has also had some downtime due to hot weather, something we’ll be seeing more of.
Most of these nuclear power plants are old. And if they can’t be relied upon as actual base load, what’s the point?
I think going 100% renewables could have some major benefits in focus (no need for government to spend resources on regulating nuclear power) and synergies (you get lots of excess cheap electricity that can be used to make hydrogen which can be used to decarbonise steel and fertiliser production, and you invest more in battery R&D which also benefits cars and off-grid applications).
We’re also starting to see that advanced geothermal could become a viable alternative to nuclear. I believe that would be a huge Hail Mary to the energy transition because it’ll be easier to get people from the oil and gas section aboard. That will give a lot more political willpower for the transition.