>> Downtime almost always planned and scheduled

> Not in 2022 in France. Not 2011 in Japan.

Nice try, but no cigar. Note the word "almost". Even two times are perfectly consistent with almost always. In fact there were a lot more unplanned downtimes than that. Because unplanned downtimes do happen. They're just not a big deal, because overall, the capacity factor of nuclear is >90%.

You really have to stop cherry picking individual data items that suit your ideology and start looking at the overall data. Nuclear: >90% capacity factor. EE: <15% capacity factor. So it is about as abnormal for EEs to be available as it is for nuclear plants to be unavailable.

That's the actual facts.

And of course, 2022 in France was scheduled downtime. It then took a little longer than scheduled, because they found something during the inspection. As I wrote elsewhere, you can't plan for what you find during an inspection. Because if you could, there'd be no point in doing the inspection in the first place. It's why you do inspections, to find out if there's something you are not expecting.

> [Wind and solar not reliable] ...old arguments.

The fact that they are old does not make them any less true. I don't care what other people said was impossible. This crap only "works" with massive fossil backup, which isn't really an option.

> no, nuclear is not a good backup solution

Totally agreed. Because once you have nuclear as a "backup" you simply don't need the unreliable "primary", as the "backup" is already CO2 free and also cheap and reliable.

And since fossil is not a viable alternative backup either, there is no viable backup. So the whole Energiewende is built on a lie.

Which is why so many countries are now turning around in order not to repeat Germany's mistake.

Germany’s Energy Crisis Dispels Several Myths

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2022/08/31/germany...

"Much of its problem is self-inflicted and demonstrates the perils of populist but irrational energy policy."

Amid an energy crisis, Germany turns to the world's dirtiest fossil fuel

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1124448463/germany-coal-energ...

GERMANY’S ENERGIEWENDE A disaster in the making

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Vahrenholt-2...

Germany's Energy Catastrophe

https://quillette.com/2022/07/14/germanys-energy-catastrophe...

And no, your curves are not meaningful. In fact, as I and others have pointed out before, multiple times, they are utterly meaningless.

That countries were getting out of nuclear 2 years ago is well known und undisputed.

Even FRANCE was getting out of nuclear 2 years ago, betting on renewables.

They no longer are. Between then and now something happed. Something you refuse to acknowledge or even recognize, because it doesn't fit your ideology, and you don't care to look at actual data.

> How about your ideology?

What ideology? I was against nuclear and in favor of the Energiewende. Until I started look at the actual data. In detail. Something you absolutely, categorically refuse to do.

> All the people not of your opinion are following an ideology,

Nope, people who ignore the data are following an ideology.

To quote the Forbes article again:

"Much of its problem is self-inflicted and demonstrates the perils of populist but irrational energy policy."

Populist but irrational energy policy. Ideologically driven.

Glad I could clear that up for you.