> making nuclear nonviable?
Not nonviable just less viable. This power plant was already scheduled for decommissioning in 2024 so the specifics are only really relevant to it. It’s really constructing a replacement that’s non viable due to the very long time horizons involved. Back in 2018 only 2% of California’s solar was curtailed, by 2040 it might hit 30+%.
> about nuclear curtailment?
Keeping Nuclear at steady state it useful so it’s the last to be shut off. Frances nuclear was down at 70% capacity factor where US has generally stayed above 90%, but that doesn’t mean US nuclear is profitable every minute it’s operating. Solar curtailment is a sign of very low local spot electricity prices, thus even if your generating electricity during curtailment it’s likely below the average cost of production.
> no solar for half the day
Environmentally nuclear is a great nighttime source of electricity, but PG&E only care as about the economic question. As to solar, it’s displacing natural gas which can be used at night or on cloudy days. The economic break even point for solar vs natural gas is roughly 50% curtailment so these trends are going to continue.
> making nuclear unnecessary
It’s not about nuclear being needed or not as current infrastructure is needed as redundancy if nothing else. More generally PG&E is a legal monopoly with a poor reputation not some hip startup that needs publicity. Their simply not going to talk about complex topics most people on HN have trouble understanding let alone the general public.