"Deep Decarbonization" refers to an 80% CO2 emissions reduction by 2050. This study examines the costs of getting there.
http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/US-Deep-Decarbonization-Report.pdf
Their conclusion was that a roughly 50/50 nuclear/renewable mix (the "High Nuclear" classification) of new capacity is much cheaper than an all-renewables strategy (the "High Renewables" classification), by a factor of about 3.5
Why? Because an electric grid that goes down is unacceptable. Renewables don't work if the wind doesn't blow or the clouds move in. Power can be moved in from a different area, but that means the whole grid has to build 3-4 times the needed local capacity to make sure they have power to spare to send to other regions when necessary. That costs big money. A big nuclear baseline means the renewables don't have to be overbuilt, and makes the whole system much cheaper.
They do examine energy storage with things like pumped hydro, but that's actually more expensive than nuclear and more environmentally damaging.
Note that with a current US GDP of around $17 trillion, the "High Nuclear" strategy consumes about 1% of GDP. Kind of unlikely to destroy the economy.
http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/US-Deep-Decarbonization-Report.pdf
Their conclusion was that a roughly 50/50 nuclear/renewable mix (the "High Nuclear" classification) of new capacity is much cheaper than an all-renewables strategy (the "High Renewables" classification), by a factor of about 3.5
Why? Because an electric grid that goes down is unacceptable. Renewables don't work if the wind doesn't blow or the clouds move in. Power can be moved in from a different area, but that means the whole grid has to build 3-4 times the needed local capacity to make sure they have power to spare to send to other regions when necessary. That costs big money. A big nuclear baseline means the renewables don't have to be overbuilt, and makes the whole system much cheaper.
They do examine energy storage with things like pumped hydro, but that's actually more expensive than nuclear and more environmentally damaging.
Note that with a current US GDP of around $17 trillion, the "High Nuclear" strategy consumes about 1% of GDP. Kind of unlikely to destroy the economy.
