Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I found the step size problematic, but the first linked spreadsheet seemed to demonstrate that the largest contribution of nuclear was to provide a robust stream of wasted energy. Going with energy conservation, electric transport, renewable generation and the minimum available amount of nuclear, (1), even with the largest values of industry usage available, settings of 3 for offshore wind and 1 for onshore wind and most other sources eliminated wasted energy. I wanted to minimize, not eliminate, wasted energy as having a small amount seemed to provide assurance that you really had enough.

I haven't played with the other spreadsheets yet, but financial considerations are largely the result of political policy decisions, even if we pretend TINA. The most sensible solution would be to build all of the infrastructure under a ZIRP. If it is ok for saving feckless bankers why is it wrong to use it to secure our energy future?

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Oct 12th, 2012 at 09:51:52 AM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows: