The bulk of French renewable is hydro, which is not going to grow, and has been there for ages. It's actually a very good complement to nuclear plants.
It's disingenuous to point at 28% renewables as if it's a sudden victory of good wind and solar against bad old nuclear.
Particularly when we know that gas power plants will be built to partially replace Fessenheim.
Current renewable generation is two thirds hydro, one third solar and wind. France's installed capacity for solar plus wind already exceeds hydro. With plenty of room for more.
Installed capacity for solar and wind is a parameter that seems pretty meaningless. For example (according to Wikipedia) the Agua Caliente solar project in Arizona (an ideal location), has an effective output of less than 30% of its installed capacity. A PV plant more comparable with France's conditions, the Lauingen Energy Park in Bavaria, has an output of 12% of its installed capacity.
I never claimed that installed capacity equals effective output, that's obviously not true. I don't think the figures are meaningless, either, but whatever --
Grandparent claimed that the bulk of renewable energy produced in France is hydro (and called me disingenuous). I just cited some statistics -- installed capacity as well as current effective output! -- to put his claim into context. Here are some more[1]: Energy production by source in France, 2019, Hydro 55.5 TWh, Wind 34.1 TWh, Solar 11.6 TWh. Obviously anybody is free to assign whatever value one wishes to terms like "bulk of", but those are the numbers.
How convenient that I also included the current production (at the time of writing) in my comment, right? Btw now it's 4.6 GW wind+solar vs 6.6 GW hydro.
It's disingenuous to point at 28% renewables as if it's a sudden victory of good wind and solar against bad old nuclear.
Particularly when we know that gas power plants will be built to partially replace Fessenheim.