[anonporridge]

Wind and solar got better, but it seems fundamentally problematic to me to suggest that those are the alternatives to nuclear. They're not.

Fossil fuel is the alternative to nuclear (and possibly battery supported wind/solar) as the base load. Fossil fuels are fundamentally cheaper because they can more easily avoid paying the cost of their negative externalities than nuclear can. If we could actually internalize the negatives of fossil fuel burning (i.e. by carbon tax) then nuclear might actually be the most economical option for the base load with solar and wind picking up the slack.

[Retric]

Even with that line of thinking, France was well past the point of using Nukes for base load power.

France had nuclear capacity factors around 70% when America and much of the worlds nuclear power plants where closer to 90%. It physically worked, but dramatically increased production cost per KWH.

Assuming they cut back to 30% or even 40% of all electricity being supplied by nuclear that’s still a significantly reduction.

[ncmncm]

Renewables + storage is the alternative to nukes. And, there is simply no contest. Nukes have been left far behind.