[sir_bearington]

I'm not sure I follow. The fact that a nuclear grid doesn't require storage is precisely why it's so much better. In order to make renewables viable we'd need to redirect a huge portion of our storage capacity away from electric vehicles and towards grid storage instead.

> That is, if you assume we'll need nuclear power, you're basically assuming we're not going to solve the climate crisis.

How on earth does this make sense? The country that has come closest to solving the climate crisis (France) is heavily nuclear. Their carbon intensity of electricity is 1/7th that of Germany.

[tstrimple]

It's always funny to me how proponents of nuclear power use France as their example while ignoring that France is trying to dramatically reduce the amount of nuclear power they have because it's too expensive. If you're going to use them as an example, let's use them as a full example instead of just trying to paint a rosy picture on a nuanced subject.

[freeflight]

There's just so much misinformation about nuclear out there it's kind of crazy.

Another claim I see regularly: Angela Merkel decided on the German nuclear exit as a response to Fukushima and she permanently shut down all reactors.

When in reality Merkel tried to draw out and prolong a nuclear exit that was already decided and ratified in the early 2000s and Germany still has fission reactors running to this day.

[posix_me_less]

The GP point is valid. France production is much cleaner thanks to nuclear energy. Whether nuclear energy being "too expensive" is actually a relevant problem in this discussion depends on your ideas about the role of government, importance of the CO2 reduction, importance of big private profits and so on.

[sir_bearington]

Emphasis on "trying". They aren't actually reducing nuclear production because renewables can't replace it.