[hushpuppy]

> Funny article in that it doesn't discuss lifecycle costs. A side-by-side comparison of the cost of grids powered by nuclear power plant relative to those powered by wind/solar/storage is what I'd expect to see from a 'paper of record' like the NYTimes.

If you eliminate gas and coal powered plants then the costs of nuclear plant lifecycle is incidental compared to economic losses that a country would encounter if they relied on solar and wind.

The dirty secret about "clean energy" is that it isn't actually very clean. When you eliminate big coal plants and try to use solar or wind, what you are actually doing is moving your dependence from coal to natural gas.

Those wind farms and solar farms require significant investment in numerous smaller style natural gas plants in order to function correctly.

So, right now, when people think they are moving away from fossil fuels they are really just moving to natural gas that is supplanted by solar and wind when conditions are ideal for them to work properly.

If you want to eliminate your dependence on natural gas, then, the only feasible option is nuclear.

[merb]

> If you want to eliminate your dependence on natural gas, then, the only feasible option is nuclear.

no. you need gas for nuclear AND renewables. it really does not matter. it's bullshit to argue against it unless you show the world a way to have an on/off button for a nuclear plant. (if you do, you might be very very very rich)

[Krssst]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant#Nuc...

[merb]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant

> Load-following plants are typically in between base load and peaking power plants in efficiency, speed of start-up and shut-down, construction cost, cost of electricity and capacity factor.

as said, they don't remove gas and it's stupid to assume since your article specially talks about france which is heavy on gas for peaks.

[ncmncm]

False.