> Maybe I should be more clear and say "Less than 50%". > So I'm confused because I'm reading your response as disagreeing what IS happening (decommissioning I

> Maybe I should be more clear and say "Less than 50%". > So I'm confused because I'm reading your response as disagreeing what IS happening (decommissioning IS happening) and taking it to mean that ALL reactors are being proposed to be decommissioned. Which is definitely not true. They keep delaying their supposed nuclear cutbacks: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/11/20/frances-decision-to-delay-nuclear-phaseout-by-a-decade-jepordizes-pv-plans/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/11/20/frances-decision-to-d... The reality is that wind and solar can't replace nuclear or Fossil fuels without some insanely good energy storage that is currently the stuff of science fiction. > Which this isn't really true. You CAN throttle nuclear but not infinitely and surely not like you can with coal or natural gas. France just sells the excess and this "throttles" a lot for them. It is very efficient. Incorrect. Reactors can be modulated in terms of thermal output. You can throttle the electrical output even if the thermal output remains the same by cooling the water more aggressively. Furthermore excess energy is not a hard problem to solve. Desalinate water, or other energy intensive tasks are good energy sinks. > One thing you have to consider with building reactors is that they take longer to develop and build than other sources. Which I'll agree that we should have started yesterday, but let's be realistic. If you really believe this then you should also be a proponent of renewables because they are a better stop gap to a nuclear based system than coal and natural gas are. France built up it's nuclear generation from 10% to 80% in the span of 15 years. By comparison, solar and wind are still waiting for an effective energy storage system to come into existence. Renewables are not capable of generating more than ~40% of a country's electricity due to the fundamental mismatch between the time that energy is generated and the time that energy is consumed. Look at Germany to see the failure of solar and wind to produce a carbon free energy system. The solution exists, and has existed for over half a century now.