An interesting personal opinion albeit one at contrast to the IEA.
While the International Energy Agency fully champion the use of renewables, they also take a vey pragmatic data based approach to global energy consumption and production and believe that nuclear power must compliment future energy creation more or less as it does today; providing some 20% of total electricity in advanced economies.
Saying nuclear is "effectively irrelevant" is numerically equivilant to saying the third child in a two parent family is "effectively irrelevant".
I generally like IEA stuff, but you also have to be careful about using them as a standalone source.
The IEA WEO is infamous for its inaccurate solar capacity forecasts over the last 10-15 years. They repeatedly assumed annual solar additions would flatten out (i.e., future years will not see more additions than recent years), despite the roughly exponential growth that was obviously happening. After doing it 5 years in a row, you have to wonder what was going wrong…
That is a somewhat silly statement; obviously it only makes sense to build nuclear plants if the resulting energy is cheaper than the alternatives. And nuclear power is as the most environmentally friendly source of energy we know of.
The argument, as it has been for about 40 years now, is that the people saying it is not cost competitive tend to have high overlap with people who are changing regulations to ... make it very expensive. If the regulatory framework was sane, it'd be quite cost competitive.
The problem nuclear has is the economic learning curve has been inverted. That can only be caused by overregulation.
That reads like a creedal statement. We see the same effect in all regulatory jurisdictions, indicating the effect is instead intrinsic. A more fundamental observation is that the more we learn about building nukes, the more expensive they get.
Nuclear has its role to play when the weather isn't windy or sunny, at least until storage technology gets good enough. Especially in Northern parts of the world it's a big deal, because during winters solar is pretty useless.
Getting rid of coal (and natural gas, to lesser extent) should happen ASAP, and nuclear can be a part of the solution for the transition period.
It's easy to make an argument that sticks for fossil fuels - the IEA doesn't make that case for nuclear.
They acknowledge that AGW is real and they push for an optimal path forward through energy transition .. and they don't see a downside to maintaining existing reactors and maintaining current share.
While the International Energy Agency fully champion the use of renewables, they also take a vey pragmatic data based approach to global energy consumption and production and believe that nuclear power must compliment future energy creation more or less as it does today; providing some 20% of total electricity in advanced economies.
Saying nuclear is "effectively irrelevant" is numerically equivilant to saying the third child in a two parent family is "effectively irrelevant".
https://www.iea.org/energy-system/electricity/nuclear-power