“… Completely inflexible.”
Only because it is currently designed to be that way. Until the amount of nuclear exceeds the baseload, there is no real need for “flexibility” unless irrationally forced to coexist with an unREliable source.

Since the unREliables add NOTHING to the grid that nuclear can’t and at much lower prices, requiring nuclear to “supplement the volitility of REnewable” is an assinine goal. Remove the redundant, unRElible sources and be happy with the affordable, clean, safe*, very low carbon energy from nuclear power.

Seconded. 25 years is the lifetime conventionally used by investors with a fairly high cost of capital. If you discount at over 5%, it makes little difference to the NPV if you use 35 or 25 years. The former is a far more credible horizon for solar – the output keeps declining slowly, but until the encapsulation fails, you have free electricity from a fully paid-off system. Where space is constrained (rooftops), some users may replace earlier to get higher efficiency at output, but they they are unlikely to be many. The true lifetime of wind turbines is harder to judge. Many early turbines were replaced early, because they were unreliable or built on low towers. These problems are much less likely to affect recent installations. There is likely be a business in conservative refits, upgrading the generator train and electronics, on existing towers. Blades will be replaced when they fail.

I miss a discussion of PPAs. One thing fossil fuels cannot offer, and renewables can, is 25-year fixed-price power supply contracts. These prices are just as real as spot ones. In a deregulated electricity market, a fair number of large consumers will like the certainty.

Underlying power demand is flat. Electronics are getting more efficient, homes are getting insulated, etc.

Power demand decrease from LEDs is roughly equal to power demand increase from electric cars (if all cars and trucks become electric).

Power demand increase from switching heating to electric is much harder to calculate, but it’s not that large — *maximum* 30% increase, I think.

The power demand of Germany is decreasing since 2011

http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/4-1-Home.html

(see “Strommix”)

Slight increases are followed by decreases, the trend is clear.

As far as I know the situation is the same most over Europe.

You have asked ‘why’: well, there is no eternal growth.

Thanks for you comments.

In other words, the answer is: No, there is no-one!
New nuclear plants are not about electricity, but about a completely different kind of power.

Areva can:

http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/areva-dans-l-eolien-c-est-fini.N484209

” Dans le même temps, Areva s’est également séparé d’Areva TA, spécialisé dans la conception des chaudières nucléaires pour les sous-marins et les porte-avions, que l’Etat a souhaité nationaliser pour la sanctuariser.”

Everything is closed, sold and outsourced except for atomic arms,the only profitable part of the company.