The fuck are you talking bout. There's nothing shilling about pointing out that nuclear isn't the answer as much as a diverse grid with many sources of power is.
EDF’s financial crisis was largely due to poor management
Indeed. I suppose that financial crises and bailout of virtually every nuclear company is the same right? They all just are poor at management, it couldn't be that the underlying cost structure doesn't support nuclear power as a viable source of energy unless it's heavily subsidised (a point agreed by the IAEA - are they a fossil shill too?). At the end of the day you can complain about management all you want, but the dollars don't lie.
That's a big asterisk: "during the summer."
It's not an asterisk at all. It's a trend. It's a sign of how technology changes over time, and how currently for part of the year solar + battery is actually the single cheapest source available, while in other parts of the year it's not ... but still not as expensive as nuclear, more on part with gas. But in any case it should be noted that every year we do in fact have a summer. Solar isn't perfect and if you stop frothing at the mouth you'll note I didn't advocate anywhere that solar be the only form of energy - for the same reason nuclear shouldn't be the only form of energy.
True, to a point—but disingenuous.
Not at all. It's pointing out the fundamental flaw in the parent's point. He's equating retail price with cost of production while in reality in Europe they aren't even related at all since the cost on the grid is only set by dispatchable sources of electricity. Until we have massive battery plants the customer will never see the cost of solar power on their bill. The regulations are such that they aren't related. Now in other parts of the world the grid doesn't operate in the same way and you absolutely do see solar costs affect the person's wallet, but in Europe over 95% of the time the price is set by gas peakers. Building more nuclear won't change that either, in fact because gas peakers are cheaper than nuclear it will only further stiff the government with a bill paid for by taxes (invisible to the wallet) without major regulatory change.
If you're going to compare retail costs to consumers then you need to first understand how they work.
If cheap solar doesn’t bring cheaper electricity, something is broken in the policy or infrastructure, and the GP wants to know where the fracture is.
No the GP postulated that solar is some kind of problem where it's not. The fact that it isn't a solution isn't the argument being made. Solar as it stands has little impact on people's wallets, but a significant impact in CO2 emissions. That's the point. Equating everything back to dollars paid on the utility bill is useless as it is completely unrelated to the topic of discussion.
