Yet the carbon capture people think a cost line item no advantage except regulatory requirement will scale out faster? Yeah, ok.
Carbon capture and hydrogen cats, science and engineering aside,Val ways trace back to oil and gas media and lobbying. Its just fud at the policy level.
I don't think this is true unless you assume some imminent improvement on grid scale power storage.
News reports about how cheap wind and solar are with supporting data based on levelized cost of energy (LCOE) completely miss the fact that intermittent power sources are not substitutes for base load generation. To approach true substitution you have to include overbuilding the intermittent sources or spending money on very expensive storage systems (that may not even exist yet). In either case the cost goes up considerably.
IMHO:
* don't turn off nuclear plants
* invest in more cost effective nuclear power
* invest in more effective energy storage
* invest in more effective solar/wind
* don't pretend that energy infrastructure can be legislated into existence--- I agree
* invest in more cost effective nuclear power
--- I could diatribe about this a long time, but basically I think solid fuel is a dead end in nuclear plant economics, but the entire industry is focused on solid fuel rod huge pressurized dome. I think truly effective nuclear will take a lot of government investment and novel thinking. Or materials breakthroughs that make LFTR/MSRs cheap.
* invest in more effective energy storage
-- EVs will take care of this, probably sulfur batteries
* don't pretend that energy infrastructure can be legislated into existence
-- it can be subsidized effectively though. See: china.