Energy is was more than 70% nuclear in France. The rest is mainly hydro, solar when available and a bit of Gas [1]. Some reactors were built before and after this 20 years nuclear rush, this is why 50% in my previous message.[^2]
[1]: https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/regional-data#producti...
[2]: https://twitter.com/superbello123/status/1505287449995579396
France peaked around 75% of electricity from nuclear. Energy is bigger than just electricity and generally includes transport and fuel for home and industrial heating, which puts Framce back around a half of energy from clean sources.
This 75% of electricity is (perhaps not coincidentally) very close to the 80% that many people feel modern renewables can provide without any major storage issues. Because that 20/25% leeway means you can just use fossil backup to fill any gaps where your clean supply doesn't match your demand.
But, the anti-renewable types who point to nuclear to justify their outdated opinions on renewables never seem to care that nuclear was only ever part of a larger system. They meticulously count every penny spent on grid upgrades and storage for one, but not the other. Pumped hydro and nuclear is a classic combination for decades.
They'll attack time-of-use pricing as some kind of attack on liberty even though its a standard thing to do with excess nuclear capacity overnight, in places like France, for example.
Why does the answer to those questions make your claims about renewables needing storage nonsensical?