That is one of the weakest links in your analysis.
In point of fact, the replacements probably will be efficiency, renewable generation and natural gas; which, even if it means a small immediate uptick in emissions, is preferable to the continued operation of the nuclear plant. The lack of flexibility in the nuclear plant actively obstructs high volume deployment of renewable energy (yes that's documented). That means it does nothing to assist in closing coal plants and reducing (short or long term) carbon emissions.
The uptick in emissions is the cost of adjusting 'the machine' for the far greater emissions reductions that are able to be realized by a high renewable penetration grid. The natgas plant can cycle in support of variables in a way that nuclear cannot. This allows it to be used less and less as more and more renewables come online.
It's like that adage asking if you can make an omelet without breaking eggs. When you are deconstructing a system as complex as the grid you have to expect that all progress will not be measured as immediate forward movement. Clinging blindly to that kind of point while ignoring the obstructive nature of the eggshell is not rational.
The paper itself was probably commissioned by supporters of Germany's nuclear operators. While it is legitimate research it is crafted in a manner that opens it to critical discussion. For example, using overnight costs for nuclear doesn't begin to capture the full costs with interest and produces a major distortion of the numbers when comparing it to the small scale projects on the renewable side. And even then they used the absurd number of $3000/kw for overnight costs, when the projects being built are easily more than double that.
Also, there is literally no discussion on the trend lines for renewable costs - which must be one of the most significant inputs into their model. Since 2012, the costs of both wind and solar have continued their drop and made them the go-to option for most new investment in energy - without a carbon price.
Finally the discussion above is not addressed in this paper at all. The claim being made is that we cannot power our culture with renewable energy sources. That claim is unequivocally false.
= new reply since forum marked as read