DOE has produced several documents on the topic.
As for "diversity of supply" I take it you mean that to imply we should include atomic fission pot boilers as part of the mix?
If so, you also fail to understand that a "centralized-grid-built-around-large-scale-generation" is a completely different machine (literally it is a machine) than a "distributed-grid-built-around-renewable-generation".
They are conceptually different, technically different, and economically different. That is why there exists a bias in the present system against renewables and for atomic fission. Technically it is indisputable that a distributed grid built around renewables is far superior to a centralized grid.
That is why after 50 years of intense policy and economic support for fission, nothing has changed about the nature of the present grid - it still loves coal.
That is why building renewables and striving for energy efficiency causes fission products to be unworkable in the market; and why state efforts to prop up fission damage efforts to move away from centralized generation.
...Should EU countries go half way towards meeting their renewables target of 20% by 2020 that would be an extra ca. 440TWh. Even if EU went only half way, which by all means is a very conservative estimate, that would still be ca.220TWh of additional generation. Under its conservative ‘scenario A’ forecast, UCTE expects 28GW of net new fossil fuel capacity to be constructed by 2020. On an average load factor of 45% for those plants that’s an extra 110TWh.
Therefore under very conservative assumptions on renewables, we can reliably expect an extra 330TWh of electricity to be generated by 2020, leaving a shortfall of 16TWh to be made up by either energy efficiency or new nuclear.
There are currently 10GW of nuclear capacity under construction/development, including the UK proposed plants that should be on operation by 2020. If we assume that energy efficiency will not contribute, that would imply a load factor for the plants of 18%. Looking at the entire available nuclear fleet that would imply a load factor of just 76%. We do believe though that steps towards energy efficiency will also be taken, thus the impact on load factors could be larger.
Under a scenario of the renewables target being fully delivered then the load factor for nuclear would fall to 56%.
(Bold in original)
Citigroup Global Markets European Nuclear Generation 2 December 2008
https://www.citigroupgeo.com/pdf/SEU20085.pdfDo you think that fission boilers, as expensive as they are, can survive economically when only 56% of their product can be sold at a price above costs? Electric markets allow generating sources to sell on any given day at a price based strictly on fuel costs, but over the long term there must be sufficient market to recoup the costs of capital investment along with O&M costs. Private investment runs as fast as it can from fission because the economics, as shown above, are against it.
That presents a policy choice - do we use state muscle and unending public funding to force nuclear onto the market in order to preserve the place of centralized coal, or do we provide the appropriate short term subsidies and policy support that have already demonstrated their effectiveness at reducing costs of electricity from renewable sources?
They are mutually exclusive.