That, however, is an economic decision unrelated to load following. Being able to load follow but deciding not to build the last plant that would be used 5% of the time is not the same as not being able to load follow, and being forced to have batteries or alternative production means.
France meets its peak electricity demands with fossil fuel generation, hydropower, and imports.
Hydropower is used for peaks a lot, because France has a lot of reversible hydro, but fossil plants and imports aren't routinely used for peak use.
Take a second look at those imports, they only did that when nuclear was unable to meat demand which was every single weekday.
Exact numbers get tricky as they would export and import at the same time due to grid balancing still they needed to export ~1/5 of all nuclear power generated at a loss and import ~30+tWh just to meet demand. Even then utilization tells the story it was in the 60% range in 1988 while the US saw utilization in the 90% range, and again that’s with exporting below costs. Low utilization increased prices by about 30-50% depending on year and that’s with heavy dependence on fossil fuels and a relatively low percentage of nuclear consumption in the country. Nuclear simply doesn’t scale across an electric grid unless you want to more than double the price of electricity or provide subsidizes on that scale.
Just look at what happens to the EU grid if Germany and every every other country outside off France was 1/3 nuclear.
I have linked to several sources in this thread, but as am not going to bother when someone says “your wrong” and nothing else. It’s the same reason I don’t talk with flat earth people, trolling is amusing for some people show a little investment and I may educate you.
Did you notice people saying French nuclear power had zero subsidies? Notice how I didn’t mention the links from other people in this thread showing French nuclear subsidies.
Perhaps I am sadistic, then again I am not the one defaulting to personal attacks rather than cold hard facts.
Zero “net” subsidies, which is what matters. The French govt earn much more money from nuclear than they spend in nuclear, so saying that the govt subsidies nuclear is a lie.
Permanent goalpost moving, pulling imaginary figures from sources you never refer to (and pretending you did) isn't “cold hard fact”: it's bullshit.
Comments
That, however, is an economic decision unrelated to load following. Being able to load follow but deciding not to build the last plant that would be used 5% of the time is not the same as not being able to load follow, and being forced to have batteries or alternative production means.
Hydropower is used for peaks a lot, because France has a lot of reversible hydro, but fossil plants and imports aren't routinely used for peak use.
Take a second look at those imports, they only did that when nuclear was unable to meat demand which was every single weekday.
Exact numbers get tricky as they would export and import at the same time due to grid balancing still they needed to export ~1/5 of all nuclear power generated at a loss and import ~30+tWh just to meet demand. Even then utilization tells the story it was in the 60% range in 1988 while the US saw utilization in the 90% range, and again that’s with exporting below costs. Low utilization increased prices by about 30-50% depending on year and that’s with heavy dependence on fossil fuels and a relatively low percentage of nuclear consumption in the country. Nuclear simply doesn’t scale across an electric grid unless you want to more than double the price of electricity or provide subsidizes on that scale.
Just look at what happens to the EU grid if Germany and every every other country outside off France was 1/3 nuclear.
I don't know where you get your numbers, they're simply not accurate. Do you have a source so I can look at it?
Wait, if you think it’s not correct you must have a source for that. What’s your numbers and where did you get them?
It's funny, because you keep saying bullshit and pulling numbers out of nowhere and at the same time you're the one asking for sources.
I have linked to several sources in this thread, but as am not going to bother when someone says “your wrong” and nothing else. It’s the same reason I don’t talk with flat earth people, trolling is amusing for some people show a little investment and I may educate you.
me scrolling the thread
Ok. You're not just some dude arguing in bad faith. You must be genuinely psychotic.
Sure, if that’s what makes you happy.
Did you notice people saying French nuclear power had zero subsidies? Notice how I didn’t mention the links from other people in this thread showing French nuclear subsidies.
Perhaps I am sadistic, then again I am not the one defaulting to personal attacks rather than cold hard facts.
Zero “net” subsidies, which is what matters. The French govt earn much more money from nuclear than they spend in nuclear, so saying that the govt subsidies nuclear is a lie.
Permanent goalpost moving, pulling imaginary figures from sources you never refer to (and pretending you did) isn't “cold hard fact”: it's bullshit.