> but my assumption is that they cannot carry enough power
Right now (https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/DE), Germany is importing from France alone the equivalent of a bit under two French nuclear power plants at full power.
Right now (https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/DE), Germany is importing from France alone the equivalent of a bit under two French nuclear power plants at full power.
France could be electrically self-sufficient, Germany couldn't -- whether they would depend on FR/BE/NL/... being irrelevant.
It gets more complicated on a euro per kWh basis as Frances nuclear is much more expensive so economically their losing money even if it looks better in terms of cash flows.
That said, self sufficiency is expensive and generally not worth the costs involved.
Indeed, which is why I wrote “The worst peak being at around 80GW during the winter [...]”.
According to what arbitrary criterion?
French nuclear power is such a bad deal for the country they try really hard to avoid showing the public how massive the subsidies are. Oddly enough this seems to have worked, and meanwhile they significantly reduced emissions which is a win for the environment.
Solar/wind, when it products, crashes market prices. Nuclear is supposed to produce at those hours too, except that if it does, it sells at a loss; and if it doesn't, it blows its load factor which is supposed to be its strong point. In both cases, because of the destabilisation of the production equilibrium, caused by solar and wind, the balance of nuclear is endangered.
Yet nuclear is needed to deal with the very common lacks of solar/wind. Hence the global result: prices getting higher. The irony is that the State itself subsidies solar/wind, both directly, and indirectly by forcing the electrical company (which is mostly State-owned, and which also owns the nuclear plants) to buy solar/wind electricity at ridiculously high prices, which is killing its balance and forces it to raise consumer prices.
There was no such problem when there was not a market like the present one, and when there was no solar/wind. Production was OK, prices were low. All was going fine. The problem was introduced by a liberalisation dogma that "had" to be applied to everything and the kitchen sink + a pro-renewable/anti-nuclear dogma (renewable is not bad per se, but the consequences of its rushed development have been ignored, despite being very foreseeable).
Which is in part an outgrowth of bringing cheaper wind and solar electricity sources online combined with inexpensive natural gas. The headline ultra low wind and solar prices hide the fact they are still profitable to bring online meaning it’s selling enough energy at positive prices to add more. It is also profitable to add batteries to the electric grid in California which should offset other peaking sources like natural gas. The question of what becomes of nuclear may simply be it’s largely phased out with some being kept around as a combination of energy source and useful isotope generator.
2. Regarding your comment, I personally don't see Germany importing 72 gCO2/MW power to export 399 gCO2/MW power as a good thing for anyone but coal companies, but whatever floats your boat.
Which is a good thing. Very few countries are self sufficient regarding cars for example, or Kiwis. So humanity invented trading and people trade things they don't have for things they have - so good interconnection is a good thing.
Absolutely.
The net value also doesn’t buy you anything if you have to import electricity due to lack of local production.
France can self-supply itself with electricity.