Given the false data, no sources, typical nuke propaganda, I can only quit this senseless discussion. You're here to post all your archive, not to discuss a point.
Have fun, man. Got better things to do.
We'll see where it goes. I bet on RE, and so far we are a huge majority. It's just common sense.

It's a drop in the ocean compared to what it has been given to nuclear and fossils. Again, it contributed to the fall of the cost of technology, whereas with nuclear it keep rising.
Man, you are cherry picking, digressing, moving me away from my original post. And yet, never answered it.

As years go by, cost estimates are rising and - of course - it's not at all coming from past revenue, nor from the utility companies. Who's gonna pay?
Here in the UK, the first Magnox will be dismissed (maybe) by 2081. Give me a call, we'll celebrate.

it can be unreliable, and when you stop a big plant, the damage is huge. Solar and wind are scattered on the territory and much more resilient.
As of today, no deposit with a waste management long term strategy has been tested enough without resulting in a failure.

Again, let's not open pandora's box, I could stay months listing you the reasons why many think there's no future for nuclear, if not risible quotas on the world scenario.
CF has no meaning if you don't consider the primary energy vs final use performance. Thermoelectric energy is inefficient

Nope, the trend is consistent with the RE quota. Portugal is the same.
You're funny. When I told you that the French government nationalised Areva and controls EdF prices to consumers to keep them stable and low, you denied it was a subsidy.
/

I wouldn't trust going over 70% with Europe's old plants: e.g. some vessels have documented microfractures which may require long interruptions to be monitored and maintained.

In a high RE scenario (not 100%), the remainder would be very low. Unbearable with nuclear.

You have no idea of what you're talking about. You keep saying my statements are false but so far haven't been able to demostrate it.
Here's a demonstration of your propaganda and lack of knowledge. CF of 70-90%? This are the IEA estimates for 2050 and EPR performances. /

That’s old news. Many projects are being approved and built. CFDs are paving the way to cheaper bills. Spain and Germany have more renewables than Italy and UK and their bills are lower. Money well invested. Nuclear needs long term solutions before being part of any discussion. 70+ years, none yet.

The point of my post.

Cheap as it works with debts. Paid by tax payers. Sorry you haven't realised it yet. Everybody else knows it.

www.renewable-energy-industry.com/countries/ar...

Nuclear is dirty. Yours is a typo.

www.pveurope.eu/markets/ener...