[Moldoteck]

ah yes, green fuel like dirt cheap H2 and irrelevant emissions from multi GW of gas/coal firming... I'm not sure what you mean by a boner for nuclear, but we see France has one of the lowest emissions in EU, did teh job in under 20y, is largest net exporter in EU, and spent on this half of what DE spent on EEG alone. Germany is still one of the worst emitters in EU after 25y of ewende.

No country managed to match french emissions (without sufficient hydro firming) even now. Denmark(albeit helped by nordics), California and SA still have higher emissions

[ViewTrick1002]

And what is the method for say Poland to bring down their 589 gCO2 per kWh emission intensity with the lowest cumulative emissions?

Waiting until the 2040s for new built nuclear power or you know, just investing in renewables and storage?

You seem stuck in some imaginary perfect world, always looking back rather than daring to look forward.

Even the French are wholly unable to build new nuclear power in 2026 as evidenced by their zero commercial reactors under construction and the state of the EPR2 program. The French fleet will shrink due to all plants hitting EOL without replacements in sight.

Looking at cumulative emissions any investment in renewables, even if they are imperfect, extends our timeline for reaching perfect by decades. Due to their deployment speed and how effective they are at decarbonization per dollar spent.

[Moldoteck]

Do both. I didn't advocate to stop renewables. I advocate to do both unlike some that have a boner for renewables and gas firming. Yes if you don't build ren now. You'll have higher emissions till nuclear is ready. If you don't build nuclear now, you'll have higher emissions when you use gas firming. The solution is expanding both, like it's done in France, Sweden, Romania and bunch of other countries

Epr2 is advancing, framatome is already manufacturing it's components. EDF will extend own units just like it was done in US so the fleet will either remain stable or grow

[ViewTrick1002]

Which means you are advocating for slower decarbonziation.

> If you don't build nuclear now, you'll have higher emissions when you use gas firming.

This means neither technology nor markets will ever change. I think here you have your issue. You assume everything is static.

> The solution is expanding both, like it's done in France, Sweden, Romania and bunch of other countries

You mean the zero commercial nuclear powerplants under construction in those countries?

Talk is easy. Running bidding processes are easy. Selling the public on tens of billions in handouts per large scale reactor and having to own the results for decades is hard.