> The cost of fuel is close to zero. Consequently running a powerplant at full charge or half-charge is exactly the same (It can even be inverted). This is fal

> The cost of fuel is close to zero. Consequently running a powerplant at full charge or half-charge is exactly the same (It can even be inverted). This is false from an economical/financial point of view: "Another important factor in estimating a NPPs lifetime cost derives from its capacity factor. According to Anthonie Cilliers, a scholar and nuclear engineer, "Because of the large capital investment, and the low variable cost of operations, nuclear plants are most cost effective when they can run all the time to provide a return on the investment. Hence, plant operators now consistently achieve 92 percent capacity factor (average power produced of maximum capacity). The higher the capacity factor, the lower the cost per unit of electricity." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants#Construction_costs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla... This is also false upon a purely technical considerations as modulating induces thermal shocks leading to failures. >> may prove to be a bad deal as electrolysis equipment doesn't like (breaks sooner) when using an intermittent electricity input. > The problem is exactly the same than for electrolysis done associated with intermittent renewable Nope, as an electrical system based upon intermittent renewables must be continental ( https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-... ), the powerful grid needed being paid by the low LCOE of renewables and enabling the system to route overproduction, wherever they occur, towards centralized water-electrolysis plants. Good luck trying to convince anyone brain-equipped to pay for such a powerful continental grid along with the high LCOE of nuclear. 'Laughable', seems adequate.