An important part in our work as researchers is to constantly be vigilant to ensure that we do not succumb in the bekräftelseförstärkning, that is to say, to use only the data that confirms our thesis. The us energy agency EIA says a lot really that, right now in the united states are more expensive to produce electricity with nuclear power than with renewable. But the EIA also says a lot of other things.
the EIA is talking about production costs. Low such does not automatically mean low prices for consumers. There are several ways to get renewable, profitable. One way is to introduce support measures of various kinds, as, for example, the Swedish elcertifikaten. The uk's ”strike price” is another example that is often distorted in the debate to give the impression that only new nuclear power takes part of this scheme, it also applies to renewable energy. In the U.S., many states support measures for the renewable production. California is at the top in this area, they are also in the top tier for electricity prices and electricity imports.
another way is to drop electricity prices freely as they have done in Germany, with Europe's highest electricity prices and the increasing social inequalities as a result. Germany's carbon emissions is around 15 times higher per kWh than Sweden's, and no improvement is in sight.
In a forecast shows the EIA how nuclear power's future share in the united states to a high degree depends on the charge on carbon dioxide emissions. At 25 dollars per ton of expected nuclear energy to increase by 50 per cent by 2050. It is clear that there is a strong link between low emissions and nuclear power which, in practice, been exhibited in Sweden and in France. The EIA describes that cheap fossilgas helps to make nuclear power unprofitable, and that the USA's carbon footprint from the energy sector and therefore hardly will decrease to 2050.
The capacity of the north is already used to a great extent and is not interesting from a intermittensperspektiv, this required effect and not energy. It becomes problematic if our world follow Germany's example because we can not expect to import renewable electricity when it is failing in Sweden. Or, conversely, be able to sell electricity when the outside world also has a surplus. No lower costs implied, either in the Swedish Energy agency's new report on a fully renewable electricity system, on the contrary, they expect a doubling.
the reality, as if the climate surprises, why dig up such a extreme study that Mark Z jacobson's when the IPCC's analysis is so accessible? Jacobson makes several methodological errors and faulty assumptions, including one where the burning cities in a nuclear war added to the climate impact. Even without the errors, lack of study relevance in a Swedish context.
Nuclear power accounts today for about half of Europe's low-carbon electricity generation. To set it against other fossil-fuel-free technologies is counterproductive, in particular when the argument is that renewable energy is ”clean” energy, unlike nuclear power. Then you have no life-cycle thinking clear to themselves, and dedicated to the right bekräftelseförstärkning.