Thank you for that.

I'm always tired of the anti-nuclear zealots that make it look like it's an either/or situation.

We can (and should) do both. Even if renewable plus storage ends up being sufficient in some places, it is extremely unlikely that will apply everywhere. And at the current production rates, it would take multiple decades to transition everything. Even if we take forever (10 years+) to build new nuclear, as it happens to be right now, it would still be beneficial. And there is no good reason we can't build fast like China manages to do right now.

▲

mpweiher 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Exactly!

For example, French nuclear capacity factors are currently rising. One reason, as far as I can tell, is that they can now use intermittent renewables for at least some of the peak load, meaning they don't have to ramp their nuclear plants up and down.

Win win!

Also, PV is absolutely fantastic for hot deserts: lots of sunshine and a lot of load that correlates almost perfectly with that very same sunshine.

▲

ViewTrick1002 12 hours ago | parent [-]

French capacity factors are rising because half their fleet was offline [1] in 2022-23 and they are finally getting out of that. But apparently nuclear power is 100% reliable and does not need any backup since that would add to the already unfathomably large costs for new built nuclear power.

In terms of total energy produced France is far off their earlier peaks. [2] They just keep shrinking the nuclear share.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr...

[2]: https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?ent...

	▲	mpweiher 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		2022. My kind of humor. Until March of 2023, decreasing the nuclear share was the law in France. The law said that the nuclear share was to be decreased to below 50%. In addition, the absolute capacity of nuclear power was not allowed to increase. So in order to build even just one new nuclear power plant, for example to maintain industrial capacity, they had to shut down two existing plants. Which generally makes very little sense. And it precluded building nuclear power plants the way we know how to build them quickly and cheaply: multiple units of the same design, slightly overlapping. So the law forced France to build Flamanville 3 the exact way we know how not to do it.

▲

ViewTrick1002 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Even if we take forever (10 years+) to build new nuclear, as it happens to be right now, it would still be beneficial.

Why would it be benifical to waste multiples more money on less results taking longer time to delvier? This seems like zeolotry rather than logic speaking.

▲

mpweiher 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Comparison:

1. France decarbonized their electricity sector in 15 years. Cost was €228 billion.

2. Germany has been trying and failing to decarbonize their electricity sector for the last 20+ years, the "Energiewende". Cost so far: €700 billion and rising. Specific CO₂ emissions for electricity are 10x worse than France (2024 numbers, 2025 isn't over yet, but so far it looks like little or no change).

Which is faster and cheaper, in your humble opinion: (1) or (2)?

	▲	ViewTrick1002 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		These are typical disingenuous pro-nuclear arguments trying to frame it as a comparison between two non-existent options in 2025 because rooting our future in reality makes your so position untenable that even you can't bring yourself to type it out. 1. We pay 2025 (soon 2026) costs for renewables and storage today. Thus a total sum calculated by adding up costs for 2010 solar subsidies is not applicable. 2. We pay 2025 (soon 2026) costs for nuclear power today. Thus a total sum calculated on half a century old French data is not applicable. But thanks for the admission that as soon as new built nuclear power costs and construction times face our 2026 reality it becomes economic and opportunity cost lunacy to invest in it, unless you have extraneous motives like military ambitions.