That entire report is an exercise in selectively choosing data to misrepresent renewables and present nuclear power in the best possible light and wishful think

That entire report is an exercise in selectively choosing data to misrepresent renewables and present nuclear power in the best possible light and wishful thinking. To the degree that the prominent "renewables vs. nuclear" graph they keep repeating on the webpage and figure 6 in the report is straight up misleading. This is the source: What is different about different net-zero carbon electricity systems? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666278721000234 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266627872... Utilizing storage costs from 2018 and then of course making the comparison against the model not incorporating any hydrogen derived zero carbon fuel to solve seasonal problems. Which is todays suggestion for solving the final 1-2% requiring seasonal storage in the late 2030s. Something akin to todays peaker plants financed on capacity because they run too little to be economical on their own, but zero carbon. Can be hydrogen or biofuel derived. We will know in 10 years time. Would they have chosen the ReBF model the difference between made up optimal nuclear power and 2018 renewables would be: $80-94/MWh and $82-102/MWh. It is essentially: Nukebros writes reports for nukebros, they confirm their own bias. Simply an attempt to justify another massive round of government subsidies on nuclear power.