@Yulran yeah that makes it a somewhat less ambitious. At least France is already around 70% nuclear so they just need to move the last 30% of fossils now.
@yogthos Some caveat: the current ones will all at the same time reach their end of life pretty soon, and the best estimates are that the total nuclear production will actually decrease (from 60GW currently to at best 50GW).
So it's more like "France plans to try to replace its aging reactors".
@yogthos thx! Though I want to take a closer look to it because nuclear power is very good for base electricity consumption, but itβs very hard to use for peaks and variable consumption
> βWhat this study shows is that rather than shut down nuclear plants, you can operate them in a way that makes room for renewables,β says Jenkins. βIt shows that flexible nuclear plants can play much better with variable renewables than many people think, which might lead to reevaluations of the role of these two resources together.
> According to Jenkins, all reactor designs now being licensed or built in the U.S., Canada, and Europe are capable of flexible operation, as are many older reactors now in service.
> [ . . . ] "when nuclear plants were originally licensed in the U.S., it wasnβt really necessary for them to play a role in following demand patterns throughout the day, and so nuclear plants in the U.S. werenβt licensed to operate that way.β
> [ . . . ] nuclear power plants were designed for flexibility [ . . . ] This never really happened, except in France, which gets over 70% of its electricity from nuclear and has accordingly operated some of its nuclear plants to follow changing demand for years.