[uecker]

All you are discussing the wrong points. All your conclusions rest on the assumption that nuclear is the more cost effective solution, but this is not true (and we could discuss this). You did not notice the price drop in renewables? Germany still pays subsidies (technically there are not subsidies though) but those are far less than initially. The cost drop caused a huge amount of investments world-wide in renewables far ahead of investments in nuclear. The reality is that nuclear needs more government support than renewables. The EDF in France was renationalized because operating it as a profit-driven company wasn't exactly a success story (especially since the electricity price is kept artificially low in France and does not all EDF to make the profits to make necessary investments)

Since nuclear is more costly, that all your arguments about the economic issues turn around and go into the other direction.

[UltraSane]

Germany emits about 10 times as much CO2 per kWh as France!

  Germany: 328-354g CO2/kWh
  France:   27- 39g CO2/kWh

[uecker]

Yes, and Germany's emissions for electricity production were double the amount a decade ago and are dropping as coal is phased out. So renewables do work. 1) Once the transition is complete it will also be close to zero. These numbers only show that if you move to a carbon-neutral production already in the eighties of last century your are done now. Please make a reasonable argument and not this nonsense comparison.

1) You can find a plot here (absolute numbers). See the dramatic drop in emissions in recent years? https://energy-charts.info/charts/co2_emissions/chart.htm?l=...

[UltraSane]

The sane and sensible thing to do would have been to phase out coal instead of nuclear, then Germany would have as low of CO2 emissions per KWh as France. What does Germany plan to use for dispatch-able power when wind and solar don't supply enough?

[uecker]

I agree that one should have phased out coal faster instead of nuclear. Also with nuclear one needs dispatch-able power because demand is also variable and one does not use nuclear for balancing. But one certainly needs more with renewables. For the time being this is gas (which is a small fraction of overall gas use in Germany). In the long-term it will be replaced batteries for short duration and likely back-conversion of synthetic gas if there is a longer period. Biomass and demand-side electricity management will also help. Overall, I do not see a fundamental problem.

[UltraSane]

French PWRs routinely load-follow, ramping 1-5% of rated power per minute. With ~70% nuclear generation, they had no choice but to design for flexibility. Their N4 and newer reactors can operate between 20-100% power on demand.

[uecker]

This is not about technical possibility, but about economics. The cost of nuclear is capital cost while operating costs are small, you want to run your plant at maximum capacity.