Where in the referenced document do you read this?

According to the court of Audit ( https://ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/Rapport_th... ) EDF's equity was strengthened by regular capital contributions from the State until the end of the 1970s (page 31).

The return on state capital endowments, ranging from 3% to 6%, represents a low real return, significantly lower than the theoretical rates of 8% or 9% (excluding inflation) projected at the time by the General Planning Commission for public enterprises (page 33). Handouts!

The payment of meager dividends is sometimes cancelled or postponed (2015, 2016, 2017, 2019: https://www.latribune.fr/economie/france/edf-l-etat-va-renon... ), or partially made in the form of EDF shares ("in securities", for example between 2016 and 2022) therefore in monkey money because it does not replenish the public coffers at the time or later: EDF is very indebted and the bulk of its assets (nuclear power plants) are unsellable.

Then new handouts: https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/edf-va-etre-renfloue-a-hauteu... , kludges https://web.archive.org/web/20240805011254/https://www.lepar... and tricks https://www.ouest-france.fr/environnement/nucleaire/quel-est...

> loi NOME in 2010 even offred to the competitor of EDF an access to nuclear energy at fixed low price

'Low'? Nope. It happened in 2012 and this price was set at €42/MWh

The total production cost of a MWh in 2010 was €22 (see the French Court of Auditors' report "The Costs of the Nuclear Power Sector," page 81). Since the existing generation fleet is considered fully depreciated, the €20 difference covers the extension of its operating life (Grand Carénage) and the renewal/expansion of the new nuclear power plants (EPR series).

According to EDF, the average spot price of a MWh in 2014 was €34.60 at base and €43.80 at peak ( https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/contrib/groupe-edf/es... , page 6).

In 2015, according to EDF itself, the wholesale market price was €38/MWh ( https://web.archive.org/web/20200926191300/https://www.edf.f... )

> Nobody sane of mind and reasonable take hydrogen and Power2Gas seriously in the energy sector

Projects and investments are aplenty: https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA_b540b580-43c5-4024-923d-df...

> The general efficient is low

Nope: hydrogen vehicles are easy to criticize because the mass and size of the tank are prohibitive, and compression significantly increases the cost.

This leads some to condemn all forms of hydrogen use. However, in the case of backup power, not having to store it in a small mobile tank or even transport it, and therefore being able to store it in a stationary industrial tank (where mass and volume are relatively unimportant), is not only possible but already being achieved (record: Air Liquide, and the competition is intensifying) and, incidentally, improves efficiency.

Efficiency:

- Electrolysis (PEM or alkaline): 0.75

- Storage: 0.95

- Conventional combined cycle turbine (gas + steam) with efficiency similar to that achieved with natural gas: 0.6

Overall: approximately 0.4 (just like a very recent nuclear reactor, and without any waste-producing fuel...)

> electrolizers strongly hate the spike style usage pattern necessary for a coupling with intermittent energy

See PEM.

> no installations of the required scale has even been tried

Indeed, however all components are ready.

> France's transition to nuclear power began in 1963 and is now complete.

> The Messner plan started in 1974

France's transition to nuclear power begain before this Plan. Details and sources: https://makarevitch.com/msmrenTheMessmerPlan

> It finishes with over 50 reactors in 15 years

Nope, it took from 1963 to 1999 (see above)

> The cost of the plan Messmer was estimated at 100bn€ in 2012 money.

This is the sole building cost. R&D is estimated at 55 billions (1945-2010) and the Court wrote that it is very difficult to assess, (page 35, footnote) "the scope of analysis does not cover research expenditures in the military field, nor those related to basic research.".

> Germany > energiewende > 400Bn€ burned

Nope: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47620957

> The results are so bad that Germany started to subsidies its own industry

Just like France massively subsidies its nuclear sector (among others) since the very beginning.

> results speak for themselves.

Indeed: since the 1980's France's industry fell down way more than Germany's , and taxes are in France way higher than in Germany. Such a win!

EDF adjusted economic debt at the beginning of 2026: €81.7 billion After decades of massive help (nationalisations building it, monopoly, gift-loans, debt cancellation...

> the profitability of solar operators will sink to the ground due to the overcapacity causing negative price

Wait for storage (V2G...) and hydrogen to kick in.

> France > Germany

France's transition to nuclear power began in 1963 and is now complete.

In other countries (Germany...), transitions to renewables began with the advent of their industrial versions, around 2005. The current context makes these transitions more challenging, and they are still underway.

Therefore, any comparison of their results, for example, greenhouse gas emissions, must be based not on snapshots (which currently favor France since its transition is complete), but on their progress: speed, costs, impacts, etc.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electric...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-generation-fr...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-based-carbon-...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t...

The cost of the energy transition in Germany is sometimes cited as €300 billion, €500 billion, or even €1.5 trillion.

These figures are worthless because no reputable source publishes a specific figure along with the scope of the project (some aspects of the investments needed for the electricity grid are independent of the energy source) and at least a timeframe.

These figures are actually projections published by various sources, covering distant deadlines (2050, etc.) and the entire electricity system, including non-renewable energy sources (whose additional costs are often overestimated).

EDF's accounts show that the government compensated for the effect on its revenues of this price shield ( https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/2024-03/20240315... , page 184).

Nope. Electricity exports are officially exported at a loss, since the average price per MWh exported is generally slightly lower than the average French spot price ( https://assets.rte-france.com/prod/public/2025-04/2025-04-09... , page 87). According to the sound approach established by Mr. Boiteux, this price must compensate for production costs as well as investments.

The average market price is decreasing because the renewable energy sector is expanding across the continent, thus supplying more and more electricity at a production cost that is increasingly lower than that of nuclear power.

According to RTE, France will export 92.3 TWh in 2025 (page 75), paid €5.4 billion (page 15), meaning that the average price per MWh will be €58.7. However, this renewable energy sector (considered fully amortized) will produce electricity at a cost of €60.3 according to the CRE (which considers it fully amortized and therefore neglects the bulk of the investment), and at around €78 according to EDF ( https://www.edf.fr/sites/groupe/files/epresspack/6300/CP_Con... ), which wants to build EPR2 reactors and therefore needs to have the necessary funds.

In short, France is exporting at €58.70 a year when it needs to sell for at least €78 to finance its future reactors, thus "using up" its current fleet without setting aside enough money to replace it.

Worse still: if the costs of the EPR2 reactors exceed forecasts, as all EPR construction projects (Finland, France, China, and the UK) have done, the deficit will increase even further.

Fixed costs (investments, maintenance, depreciation of the EPR alone, etc.) are by definition paid whether the fleet produces or not. Therefore, exporting at a price higher than the variable costs (paid only if the plant produces) is a lesser evil because the difference covers a portion of the fixed costs: it is less expensive to export at a slight loss than not to produce and lose more (in technical terms: the gross margin helps cover fixed costs).

However, claiming that nuclear power is profitable simply because of electricity exports is misleading, and the ideal solution would be to produce electricity at the lowest possible cost, therefore using renewable energy sources.

Furthermore, a portion of France's electricity is generated from renewables, so attributing exports solely to nuclear power is misleading.

You need to specify where the car to be washed is located, and:

- if it's not already at the car wash: whether or not it can drive itself there (autonomous driving)

- otherwise: whether or not you have another car available.

Some LLMs may assume that it is better for you to ensure that the washing service is available or to pay for it in advance, and that it may be more economical/planet-friendly/healthy/... to walk, then check/pay, then if OK to drive back.

- finding correspondences (solve parts of the puzzle) and reconstructing at least part of certain documents ( https://arkeonews.net/new-ai-tool-fragmentarium-brings-ancie... , https://virtualcuneiform.org/ )

- somewhat 'infering' some missing parts ( https://voices.uchicago.edu/ochre/project/deepscribe/ ),

- 'normalizing' (find the 'standard' form) of glyphs ( https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2025/03/ai-models-make-prec... )

Deeming dispatchable power necessary was valid as long as the technical means (long-distance, high-capacity transmission, smart grids, energy storage, network management software capable of reacting quickly enough and optimizing the system, voltage stabilization and current frequency synthesis tools, etc.) that would have allowed for a mostly non-dispatchable way to generate electricity were too expensive, insufficient, or simply nonexistent.

Now these means exist, and experts assert that it is no longer necessary to deploy a large proportion of dispatchable generation capacity. Therefore, from a technical standpoint, an electrical system based on renewables with the largest resources (wind and solar, which are not dispatchable) is feasible: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/25/will-renewable-energy-d...

> compare to solar projects

"With the cost of storing electricity at $65/MWh, storing 50% of a day’s solar generation for use during the night-time hours adds $33/MWh to the total cost of solar. The global average price of solar in 2024 was $43/MWh. Turning this cheap daytime electricity into a dispatchable profile that is closer to an actual demand profile, would therefore result in a total electricity cost of $76/MWh." https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/how-cheap-is-batter...

The total cost of nuclear power, even when building and managing waste without exceeding the budget, even without accidents, even without uranium supply problems..., is already much higher than that.

He's dead, Jim.

> 2- announcement > plans will probably accelerate

Indeed, let's see if the current trend will be reversed: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...

> Why should I read a nonsensical antinuclear article by a rando on the internet

It is sourced (or you may pinpoint what isn't).

> when there are official numbers from court of auditors?

The referenced article quotes thems!

> even if you bump them by 50%, it'll still be cheaper than german EEG expenditure alone

The cost of the energy transition in Germany is sometimes cited as €300 billion, €500 billion, or even €1.5 trillion.

These figures are worthless because no reputable source publishes a specific figure along with its scope (some aspects of the investments needed for the electricity grid are independent of the energy source) and at least a timeframe.

These figures are actually projections published by various sources, covering distant timeframes (2050, etc.) and encompassing the entire electricity system (including non-renewable energy sources).

We had the same sort of propaganda in France, then EDF (Big Chief of the French nuclear sector) boss stated in public that about 50% of the projected network-related costs are not tied to renewables ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEdQz3hGlf0&t=328s ).

> "This nuclearization lasted approximately 40 years." But messmer plan took much less.

Nope: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...

> Numbers are known in both cases and you clearly want to ignore them.

The afore-referenced articles states and sources facts and data. You don't.

> Talking about french prosperous period when DE is biggest EU economy

'Prosperous' is more-or-less 'density', not extension. This past prosperity (massively benefitting to the Messmer Plan) is an historical indeniable fact ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses ).

> gas plants > hydrogen when merely 25% mix is already worse economically than failed nuclear projects like Vogtle

This is not valid as in this context those hydrogen plants are prototypes, while Vogtle (and other recent projects aiming at building nuclear reactors) are theoritically mastered since the 1970's (Messmer Plan...).

> The announced gas plants dont match the numbers demanded by Fraunhofer, mostly because EU rules dont allow that. So basically germany is stuck in a strange position where it needs firming but it cannot build it.

Indeed, and it may imply that more coal will be burnt. This is ridiculous.

> magical cheap hydrogen

This is indeed a bet, but a non-inept one ( https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news... ), especially as the amount of electricity overproduced by renewables, reflected by episodes of low or even negative spot prices, is constantly increasing.

Indeed, but nothing comparable to the spills at Chernobyl or Fukushima.

> Nuclear fuel can be recycled

Only once, and France, an industrial leader in this area, only manages to recycle 10% of its reactor fuel this way.

> It's mostly not done because it's cheaper not to, just like in renewables

No, that's completely false. Closing the fuel cycle was considered the Holy Grail as early as the 1950s, because everyone knew that uranium deposits would greatly limit the expansion of nuclear power. The industrialization of reactors of the most promising architecture (fast neutron-breeders, sodium-cooled) as well as others, attempted at great length and expense in many countries, failed everywhere ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Notable_reacto... ), there is no ready-to-deploy model of such reactor, and this approach has been virtually abandoned, replaced by the pursuit of fusion.

> The danger was known based on multiple data points

Before the major nuclear accident at Fukushima, the formulas for calculating seismic risk (the tsunami was triggered by an earthquake) were incorrect because they neglected very old earthquakes. The cause was an inability to properly assess the risk. This inability was not universal, as some (for example, Y. Hirai in the case of the Onagawa nuclear power plant, which was closer to the earthquake's epicenter and withstood the earthquake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20...) did take the necessary precautions.

> They acknowledged evacuation was not necessary in the way it was implemented.

Arms-chair tacticians are verbose after the fact, but nowhere to be found when the problem was an ongoing challenge and experts described the worst-case scenario. The testimony of the prime minister at the time, referenced above, is perfectly clear.

> Capacity factor is important to understand how much firming you need.

No value is prohibitive, as there are many other pertinent parameters.

Yes, a failure is better than a disaster. As we say in France, "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

> Korea also announced their plan.

For 25 years, numerous announcements of this kind have been made by many nations, without any real intention of following through, and for various reasons (electoral considerations, will to create competition for renewable energy suppliers, etc.).

Only projects that are actually starting (on the ground) provide a good indication.

> Energiewende > spends more than the entire French fleet

The actual cost of this fleet is considerably higher than official estimates. Details and sources in French: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/accueil#h....

> after 25 years to have much worse emissions

This comparison is invalid, for many reasons.

On the one hand, France's transition to nuclear power began with the first industrial nuclear power reactor (dubbed "EDF1") in 1957. In 1959, the project for the power plant that would be completed in Chooz in 1967 began, and as early as 1964, nuclear power was presented to the public as the energy source that would take over in 1975 (correctly predicting that in Europe it would produce 25% of electricity 20 years later: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6Xfu8u3Yqw).

As early as 1972, two years before the launch of the Messmer Plan, nuclear power in France produced 15 TWh, or about 11% of its electricity: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-primary-energy-fos...

Then the Messmer Plan, considerably accelerating this nuclearization, started in 1974 and was completed in 1999 (Civaux-2 reactor): https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Chrono-parc-nucleaire-...

This nuclearization lasted approximately 40 years.

Furthermore, nuclear power did not replace a huge set of existing electricity-producing sector, such as coal in Germany, because in 1970 France produced about four times less electricity than at the end of its nuclear power deployment: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by...

Moreover, this was a very prosperous period, as France fully benefited from the "Thirty Glorious Years": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses

Other major differences exist.

In short: comparing France's nuclearization with the Energiewende is extremely difficult, and a direct comparison absurd.

> planning to have 80GW of gas-fired power plants

In early 2026, Germany announced it would deploy new gas-fired power plants. The impact depends on the corresponding emissions. If they are only all active for a few hours a year to get through critical periods and (as planned) replace coal or primarily burn green hydrogen, for example, then it will be progress (reducing emissions). The best-case scenario is a full renewable fleet but Rome wasn't built...

> capacity factor

So what? Capacity factor (or another similar quantity such as physical efficiency, operating life, etc.) is a salient criterion in the case of equipment consuming materials or fuel without recycling them, or producing waste in quantity or in the long term that is dangerous... therefore does not concern nuclear power but hardly concerns renewables.

A low yield makes deployment more expensive but, considered alone, is not prohibitive: a mix of renewables producing adequately (quantity, permanence, impacts, total cost including recycling, etc.) is a good solution whatever its yield.

> most of the deaths are caused by extreme evacuation measures that werent needed

This is disputed and the real amplitude of the threat was not known during the nuclear accident. The tiny evacuation ordered was minimally cautious as experts predicted, during the accident, that the worst cast would imply evacuating up to 50 millions persons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naoto_Kan#In_media

> relatively on time and on budget

Nope. 7 years late (plan: 2017, last reactor diverged in 2024).

Total cost not known, at least 24.5 billion USD and maybe up to 32 according to Bloomberg (plan: 20). Koreans are even fighting: KHNP (a subsidiary of KEPCO, the company building the plant) officially seeks for about 1.2 billion USD in compensation ( https://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=... ) and it may worsen up.

Such a resounding success... as usual: https://www.fastcompany.com/90844859/why-massive-wind-and-so...

In France numerous projects appear. Some may be too ambitious, some with a Chinese partner. In any case we will re-learn, and it will be less difficult than creating usable uranium without any adequate ore here!

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Peak_uranium

Decentralizing solar power reduces electricity transmission costs and improves reliability. This doesn't offset the additional cost, but it's not negligible.

> With breeder reactors

After decades of expensive R&D... there is no model of industrial breeder reactor ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Notable_reacto... ). Can you name one?

Russia is by far the most advanced. However, its "BN-800" reactor, which began operating in 2014, is so uninspiring that they abstain from deploying any of them, preferring the classic "VVER" (non-breeder) models, and its planned successor, named "BN-1200M," has been postponed to 2035.

This doesn't represent an abandonment of breeder reactors, as this nation is actively exploring another avenue: the "BREST" architecture (lead coolant rather than sodium), with a small demonstration reactor (300 MW) whose construction began in 2021, essentially "back to square one."

You bet it does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_nuclear_scandal

Another problem is the urgency (due to the impacts) combined with the difficulty of modifying power plants as required by "lessons learned," in other words, bug fixes. Modifying or repairing solar panels or wind turbines is easier than working on a reactor and results in a smaller reduction in the plant's output. The effects of this are significant.

The number of victims (and more generally, the health impacts) of nuclear power depends on the method of analysis, which is controversial. This is true for Chernobyl and Fukushima, where the evacuation triggered by the nuclear accident officially caused 2,202 deaths (2019 count), and 2,313 according to the International Nuclear Association.

Even the maximum potential impact of an accident is debated.

The full impact of nuclear power will at best only be known after all dismantling is complete and the last cold waste is disposed of (before this deadline any mishap or stray waste can be costly), in a few thousand years.

This is one of the major design problems of SMRs (along with the abandonment of economies of scale).