I guess it depends on how you price reliability. Solar is cheaper but then factor in the cost of storing solar for 24 hours and it stops looking cheaper. Of cou

I guess it depends on how you price reliability. Solar is cheaper but then factor in the cost of storing solar for 24 hours and it stops looking cheaper. Of course if you are OK with the power not being reliable then you don't need the battery. > At that kind of price point, you are better off building an interconnect to Norway and straight up importing hydro power Except there isn't enough hydro power in Norway to replace France's nuclear production, so looking at the current spot price of a non-scalable resource like hydro doesn't tell you much. That's the problem with hydro -- there are only so many resources to exploit. I'm also not going to touch how you value energy independence, but there is a value to it. Of course importing oil is not energy independent, but you can import oil from many countries, so that is more resilient than a fixed interconnect to Norway. What France could do is try importing LNG or coal or oil, but if the restriction is low carbon power, then you are stuck with nuclear or having the lights go out. This reality is why Germany is importing gas and using coal, and complaining about nuclear isn't going to change that reality.