[pfdietz]

I constantly see the argument "no country has ever been powered by solar and wind", implying that it therefore can't be done, and that one should use nuclear instead (never mind the same is true of nuclear; not even France is fully nuclear powered).

[nwiswell]

> never mind the same is true of nuclear; not even France is fully nuclear powered

This seems somewhat bad-faith: nuclear does supply the majority of France's power, and since nuclear is a "base load" part of the mix, it would be inefficient to get 100% of power from nuclear rather than a peaking-friendly mix that includes e.g. hydro and gas.

[pfdietz]

Focusing only on the grid is bad faith; if one includes non-grid energy use, France doesn't even get 50% of its energy from nuclear.

[robertlagrant]

What's the non-grid energy use?

[pfdietz]

Transportation, industry, maybe heating.

[krimskrams]

Are you confusing electricity generation with electricity use? If we're counting off-grid electricity generation, then we're talking about A) critical infrastructure like utilities or B) off-grid homes or communities which typically use solar panels, small wind turbines or gas/biogas to generate their own power. The off-grid portion most likely make up a tiny portion of France's energy mix, which is dominated by nuclear (>50%).

[pfdietz]

No, I'm talking about energy use that doesn't involve electricity production at all. It potentially could be electrified in many cases, but that doesn't reduce the hypocrisy of the selective "if it hasn't been done it can't be done" mindset.

[robertlagrant]

How is that relevant in this context, though? Why is it bad faith when we're talking about grid-supplied electricity generation? We need electricity generation, and most of France's is nuclear. It seems uncontroversial.

[pfdietz]

It's because the "if it hasn't been done, it can't be done" argument applies to nuclear displacing fossil fuels. Remember, the decarbonization goal has to be all uses of fossil fuels, not just their use for the grid.