undefined

points

[-]

I don’t see the difference with nuclear power? Take California, a yearly baseload of 15 GW and peak load of 52 GW. What problem is even a ”baseload” of nuclear power solving?

But we should of course keep our existing fleet around as long as it is safe, needed and economical. In that order.

EDF is already crying about renewables cratering the earning potential and increasing maintenance costs for the existing french nuclear fleet. Let alone the horrifyingly expensive new builds.

And that is France which has been actively shielding its inflexible aging nuclear fleet from renewable competition, and it still leaks in on pure economics.

by Moldoteck5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

France does not have a fully parallel nuclear power grid ready to step in when some other half isnt working. Germany has a fully parallel fossils firming grid on top of their ren deployments.

EDF isnt crying. It's just treated poorly even by looking at ARENH tax which was replaced with another one this year, while ren business gets CFD's and curtailment payments.

French nuclear fleet is extremely flexible, RTE data is public. In fact, due to ARENH law EDF was forced to subsidize competition because otherwise that competition would not exist.

by UltraSane36 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Germany has a very dirty parallel coal electricity grid which is why it emits 5 to 6 times as much CO2 per joule as France.