I suspect the misunderstanding is on your part. I read the same post you did, and I drew a completely different conclusion than you.

The obvious problem being costs. Germany is a net exporter when its renewables are producing at maximum and electricity price is zero or negative because of overcapacity issues.

Poland sells to Germany when renewables are not producing and spot price is massively inflated due to lack of production that cannot meet demand.

As a result, while Germany is a net exporter in terms of electricity, it's a net importer in terms of value of electricity.

If you have difficulties grasping this, let me put this another way. Poland would do just fine if they cut off all their interconnects with Germany. Germany would have severe problems with reliability of their electric grid if this occurred however.

Are you perchance unaware of the fact that French electricity prices are among the LOWEST in Europe?

If you were even remotely correct with your claim, prices would surely be at least on AVERAGE level?

50% is realistic considering increase of exports to Germany, even if French industry declines. German long term policy has been largely about outsourcing their power production, and reliable high volume interconnects remain a pipe dream in central Europe.

That means Western and Southern Germany will continue being supplied from France for foreseeable future, just like Eastern and Northern is currently supplied from Poland.

You do not know how grid works. We know it already from your previous idiocy from relevant threads.

Renewables that are at risk of losing 100% of their capacity have to have 100% spinning reserve. That is the reality. If you don't, you risk cascade failure across the entire grid.

It has nothing to do with "vanishing wind". Biggest cut-off issues with wind power are related to too strong winds rather than too weak ones, as that causes near-instant cut-off rather than slow decay of feed in.

Ah yes, angelosphere. The ignorant trolling continues. You are incorrect on all accounts as usual.

1. "No enrichment of spent fuel rods" policy covers almost entire world minus France and to some extent Russia. This is largely because of proliferation movement combined with anti-nuclear lobby. Same process that is used to enrichment is also used for producing nuclear grade material which creates proliferation fears and anti-nuclear lobby is extremely successful in blocking anything nuclear related that would make it more sustainable, down to security upgrades to Fukushima reactors.

2. 96% figure is the amount of fissible U235 remaining as a portion of what was put in when fuel rod is extracted. 100% means amount of U235 on fresh rod. 96% of this remains when rod is extracted and considered "spent".

"We have to respect their laws while selling our products on their territory? HOW DARE THEY?"

Modern GPUs can be hundreds and even thousands of times faster than CPUs at highly parallelizible simple math. That's why things like bitcoin mining, which are exactly that were done on GPUs before they moved to even more specialized hardware.

That was a factually correct statement. Mac OS is the bastard cousin when it comes to desktop software. The flaming didn't start until 4th sentence.

Because people in the region often lack accomodations to use bed nets. Remind yourself of poverty levels in affected regions. Having a warm bed is a luxury many cannot afford.

Lots of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Not a single fact.

Well done. Demagogy at its finest.

In reality, French already recycle their fuel, and what they can't recycle can be buried deep in the ground. You know, where similar radioactive materials are already present in regions rich in natural uranium and its natural fissile products.

Dear idiot pretending to be knowledgeable. Modern plants extract electricity not from "heat" but from "heat differential". This applies to all plants that work steam turbines, which means everything from nuclear to burners.

While it's true that turbines become more efficient with greater thermal differential, nuclear combats this with total volume of steam going through the turbine. Instead of getting typical 100-200MW turbines used with larger burner plants, nuclear turbines are rated several times that. That is why it "spews more thermal energy into the waste water", which is a really nice way to inject lots of ideologically loaded and factually incorrect words into the argument. It's not a waste water, it's tertiary cooling circuit, which you can use for pretty much anything you want, such as central heating for example. There is no "waste" in the water, it's the same water as one on intake, it's simply somewhat warmer. If you put the plant near the large body of water, it's literally irrelevant how much water you need to pump through tertiary circuit. As long as you meet the needs of the turbine thermal differential, you're good. The extra temperature that ends in your sea or ocean is utterly irrelevant when considering the total volume of water and thermal energy it contains.

But nice use of buzzwords, I'll give you that. What you utterly lack in knowledge of the process, your certainly replace with your considerable talent for demagogy and spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Even that argumentation is questionable. One has to remember that socialists are almost guaranteed to lose the presidential elections in a few years, and UMP/Republicans are effectively guaranteed to cancel this policy regardless.

And in reality, all that will happen is that Eastern Europe will get even more business in selling coal and nuclear electricity over exchanges to Western Europe. It's already great business for Poland, thanks to German drive to shut down its nuclear plants.

Perhaps this is a chance for Spain to lift itself out of the current economic woes by building up coal and nuclear on French border and selling energy to France?

Doubtful that French leaders would be that stupid though. I suspect that people in relevant places know that socialists are on their way out regardless, and UMP/Republicans are going to reverse the policy in a few years before it gets to do any damage. Hollande gets to say he fulfilled his promise, Sarkozy or whoever gets to lead the right gets another good election topic on which to destroy already depressed socialists on and everything will go back to normal in a few years. Everybody wins.

EDF has been losing money not on generation but on building projects that had bad management practices. Generation is highly profitable, as most of the plants long paid for themselves and are generating pure profit at this point.