The fact that France pursued nuclear power with an overly state-driven and inefficient model does not mean that there are not more efficient and cost-effective ways to utilize nuclear power in meeting the energy needs of the USA.
If 80% nuclear power generation is too much for a country’s electricity grid to absorb 24/7 that does not mean that some lesser % such as 30, 40, 50, or 60 might not be very beneficial.
Also, if/when electric cars and hybrids are becoming cost-effective and widely used, there could well be other uses for that nighttime power (charging batteries, making hydrogen, etc.).
This article is interesting but rather one-sided and backward-looking at a flawed example that is 30 years old (admittedly it is the one used by McCain but that does not mean we must slavishly follow the French model on nuclear power).
Bingo! We have a winner here folks. The winning answer. It is actually very obvious from reading the article. If 80% nuclear energy is too much power during portions of the day, don't build 80% nuclear power. If we used the amount just needed for night and ran it 24 hours a day, the rest of the peak time could be filled in with more flexible sources of energy and we still come out a with the right mix and don't need to sell off anything.
“If 80% nuclear power generation is too much for a country’s electricity grid to absorb 24/7 that does not mean that some lesser % such as 30, 40, 50, or 60 might not be very beneficial.”
I think that was the point the author was trying to make. Nuclear power will help us but just not on the level that it has for France or McCain thinks it will for us.