This is the same set of tired lies. 90% EAF for nuclear is a complete fiction, even in the US it only looks that way because the nameplate value isn't increase

This is the same set of tired lies. 90% EAF for nuclear is a complete fiction, even in the US it only looks that way because the nameplate value isn't increased when expensive upgrades are made so you're averaging 120% output for 75% of the year with 30% or 0% in the rest. Before Fukushima, Japan's program was around 65%. Cost for cost, a mixed renewable system will produce at least as much as a nuclear plant for at least as large a portion of the year. Nuclear can be a good choice and probably is in this instance, but the only ideology here is the same set of slimy lies that the fake pro-nuclear crowd always uses to attack renewables.