[Manuel_D]

Nuclear power is indeed a silver bullet. France supplied > 85% of its electricity demand with nuclear (with the rest being filled by pre-existing hydroelectricity). As is hydroelectricity and geothermal power for those countries with the appropriate geography. E.g. Norward produces 100% of electricity through hydro. Non-intermittent sources of energy don't need to be supplemented by alternative sources of energy.

[ViewTrick1002]

Whenever a cold spell hits France 10 GW of fossil production is started and 15 GW of exports turns to 5 GW of fossil based imports.

The French grid would collapse without 30 GW of fossil based production to manage cold spells.

[Manuel_D]

Using absolute units instead of proportional figures is deceptive.

This is Frances' electricity generation breakdown: https://aleasoft.com/france-leading-european-nuclear-energy-...

Fossil fuels are 7%.

[ViewTrick1002]

Why are you lying then? Why are you attempting to shift the topic?

You said:

> Non-intermittent sources of energy don't need to be supplemented by alternative sources of energy.

Like I said the. The French grid would crash during cold spells if not supplemented with 30 GW of fossil fueled power production.

[Manuel_D]

They could always build more nuclear plants to fill additional demand. Again, non intermittent sources don't need supplemental sources of energy, as long as there's sufficient supply. By comparison, a country cannot possibly run their grid entirely with solar on account of intermittency.

I'd suggest reading people's comments in greater detail, before accusing people of lying.

[ViewTrick1002]

So now you suggest that we should build peaking nuclear plants in an attempt at covering your previous blunder with pure insanity.

Lazard expects peakers to run at 10-15% capacity factor because you know, how often do we have cold spells in France or whatever other reason causes them to run? A couple of weeks a year at most. Lets say 15%.

Lets calculate what Hinkley Point C costs when running as a peaker. It has a CFD at $170/MWh for 30 years. Lets assume it runs at a 85% capacity factor and that $20/MWh are O&M costs.

153/0.15 + 20 = $1040/MWh

You want to solve the problem by forcing electricity costs on the consumers at double of the peak of the energy crisis.

All because you view the world in nuclear fanclub fantasy land glasses.

[Manuel_D]

If you've already provisioned enough nuclear plants to meet peak energy demand, producing less energy has no marginal cost. Alternatively, you can just keep operating at full capacity, and give energy away for free and use it for energy-intensive tasks like desalination or arc furnaces. The idea that we'd build nuclear plants that only operate a few weeks per year is a strawman of your own construction.

You're right that nuclear is more expensive than continuing to burn fossil fuels. And the reality is nobody has a plan to build fossil fuel free grid based on wind and solar. Absent a miraculous breakthrough in energy storage, solar and wind will always have to be deployed in tandem with fossil fuels. If we're looking at actually eliminating carbon emissions, nuclear is the only viable option besides geographically limited sources like hydropower.