> Renewables' share is up, therefore they replace fossil fuels because without renewables France should burn more fossil fuels.
Once again the declining share is nuclear. Fossils are stable as the data you quote shows.
> If in your opinion each and every resource (expertise, material...) used to deploy electricity-producing plants is 100% adequate for electrifying
My point is that this is irrelevant since the bottleneck is money. We don't live in a command economy where material resources and workers are assigned by the state on a given project.
> You didn't even try to counter-argument.
Why would I try when we're at the point where you don't even acknowledge raw data?
OMG, is it a joke? Consumption is stable, OK? Nuclear produced less, OK?
Therefore renewables compensated for nuclear declining production, OK?
Therefore burning more fossil fuels was not necessary, OK?
Therefore renewables replaced them, OK?
> the bottleneck is money
My point is solid even given this perspective: the way public money is used is of paramount importance: government recently ordered new nuclear reactors, and also subsidizes renewables in order to compensate past huge subsides to nuclear. More money here, less money there.
> We don't live in a command economy where material resources and workers are assigned by the state on a given project.
Read above.
> you don't even acknowledge raw data
Raw data, as explained, shows that renewables enabled France to avoid burning more fossil fuel. This is a fact, like it or not.
Nuclear is not down for intrinsic reasons, it is down because it comes after renewables in merit order, and therefore when renewables are available, it is scaled down.
In low renewables availability episodes, there isn’t more fossil production, we simply ramp nuclear up.
You didn't watch or understand them. The first thread referenced, on x.com, offers a link towards https://www.youtube.com/live/xP4jL4b_Nnk?si=P4X_qMV9vtkpVD7z...
This guy is RTE's official representative. Please listen to what he says, and let me know whether you persist to deny or reckon.
> merit order
A technical merit order, established to optimize and therefore to prefer the most adequate (overall) source. It is enforced for ages and for all sources, it isn't some arbitrarily established rule aiming at hurting poor nuclear lil'baby. If nuclear cannot compete it will disappear. The processus already started.
Once again the declining share is nuclear. Fossils are stable as the data you quote shows.
> If in your opinion each and every resource (expertise, material...) used to deploy electricity-producing plants is 100% adequate for electrifying
My point is that this is irrelevant since the bottleneck is money. We don't live in a command economy where material resources and workers are assigned by the state on a given project.
> You didn't even try to counter-argument.
Why would I try when we're at the point where you don't even acknowledge raw data?