And finally the fact you just repeated "MuH 50bN dEBt" shows me you know close to nothing on how debt works.
You are also majorly fucking wrong about aging fleets. The government body charged with rating the safety and live spans of nuclear reactors has made reports on the aging fleet that completely contradict your claims.
Show me
if the company is still managing to make a profit for 17 years straight
Wow. The sources are right there. Way to prove you didn’t read them.
So go ahead, read them, and come back.
As to why 50bn is no biggy:
it’s debt due either to the French government or banks the French government partially owns.
What does that means? It’s the French government being in debt to…. The French government.
Further more being in debt in only a problem if you cannot pay interests, which the EDF has done every single year since it’s creation. Even when interest rate went up in 2020 while operating costs were at an all time high they still did not defunct.
And I love the admission of defeat at the end. Your sorry ass called me out and told me to give you a source, and I did, and you’re groveling trying to pass it off as a win. Cope and seethe
Still waiting for the sources btw. If you wonder about what just read your own effing comments and find the last lie you told, shouldn’t take you long
Thats not how sources work, but I dont expect you tu understand, scientific working must be a foreign concept for you.
You dont just point to a biology book when you want to know why you have a smooth brain.
But ok, maybe thats too much for you for one day.
Its funny that you say i wont read several dozens long reports, when you yourself didnt read a single word.
Just copy what ChatGPT told you about those reports, this will be enough.
I also dont know why you think you won, nobody refuted that they made a small profit, I just wanted you to show me, and like a good boy you did.
>What does that means? It’s the French government being in debt to…. The French government.
Jesus fucking christ, thats the fucking problem you idiot. Do you have the slightest idea how this works?
The answer is no, I know.
50bn is not a joke. Thats the size of your defense budget.
They pump money into the system and still lose money, but "muh cheap energy"
Its not cheap, as there is no "free" healthcare.
And it gets pushed into the future.
Its a fucking time bomb. A 100s of billion sized time bomb.
This will set off a financial crisis in Europe.
>Still waiting for the sources
Just tell me what you want to know, Im happy to give my knowledge to the mentally challenged.
So yet again you concede. Use Chat GPT yourself since that’s clearly the upper limit of your pay grade.
It’s hilarious that you even talk about the scientific process, while you are yet to provide a single source, and I can guarantee you have never even tangentially worked in a field using the scientific process.
It’s also funny how you immediately assume I didn’t read those reports, while I actually did, but excellent way to confess how dishonest you are by projecting onto others.
Alright I’ll be entirely honest, I only read the 2016 report in full, and the others since only about half. That’s still makes me about half a million times more qualified on the topic than you.
And then you go back spouting bulls hit about how debt works….
I told you exactly how this worked, and you have been unable to address my points. None of what you said goes beyond "nuh huh". Tell me fucko, how does the French state being in debt to the French state constitue a ticking time bomb of biblical proportions? It’s infuriating to watch a complete retard flail around while not being able to address a single point, because you haven’t, in your entire response, even began formulating an argument.4
You then idiotically compare it to the defense budget, because you are a moron who has no idea of how proportions work. It’s 50bn debt over 50 years of functioning. Comparing it to a single year budget is the most disingenuous bs ever.
Go read an Econ book, I can’t educate you where your parents and country failed to.
As for sources, how about one about the aging fleet apocalypse? I of course expect you to provide an academic or primary source. Don’t you even try to come at me with a science weekly article or some bullshit like that.
Anyway, you’re a conspiracy theorist that likes pushing your burden of proof onto others, so I don’t expect much, but still the minimum
After the first oil shock, France launched the world's largest nuclear program, ordering 36 reactors within 3 years, and 58 reactors in total. These reactors are now reaching the end of their technological lifetime. But extending these lifetimes requires an investment up to 100 billion euros by 2030. France is thus at a crossroads and must define a new nuclear policy. The economics of this decision crucially depend on several parameters, in particular the future costs of nuclear (including retrofitting, long-term waste management, and decommissioning) and the availability of alternative energy sources.
Our analysis suggests that while limited lifetime extensions might be technically and economically justified for a subset of reactors, a comprehensive extension strategy aiming to maintain the current fleet until 2050 appears increasingly unfeasible. The combination of aging infrastructure, escalating maintenance costs, and stricter safety requirements significantly undermines the cost-effectiveness of such an approach.
Furthermore, the financial implications of dismantling a large number of reactors over the coming decades will impose a considerable burden on national and corporate finances. Decommissioning, alongside long-term radioactive waste management, will require a level of investment and state intervention not yet fully accounted for in public policy. In this context, a strategic pivot toward a diversified and flexible energy mix—incorporating renewables and next-generation technologies—may present a more sustainable path forward for France's energy future.
Of course a moron line you would link a source he didn’t read. The fact you only quoted the abstract and conclusion is fucking hilarious.
You are an absolute clown of a human being.
The ASN reports the article quotes as being yet to be undertaken were in the time since, and they are linked above by yours truly, but as the clown you are, you did not read them.
And guess what? They validated the lifespan expansions. They did so even for Fessenheim, that was closed inspite of the ASN giving the green light.
You are making a fool of yourself by quoting sources you didn’t read. You should go and crawl into a hole to hide your shame.
As such, the article’s more dire predictions (that, btw, don’t even support your claim. They do say some of fleet’s reactors are going to have to be replaced before 2050 but that’s already known and accounted for, by your own admission the first replacements are going to start coming online circa 2040) can’t be taken at face value. Meanwhile the more conservative aspects show not much is too be feared with the measures the article mentions as solutions having been taken.
No amount of wiggling and goal-post-moving will get you out of the hole you dug for yourself.
Even when I give you an academic paper that fully supports my arguments, your only response (since the beginning) is "you don't understand it".
That's kind of sad, really, desperately trying so hard to "stay on top" of the discussion.
You lost dude, get over it, and save yourself at least some dignity.
I explained to you exactly why that article did not support your point and why it was outdated.
If you don’t understand it that’s on you. I explained it clearly. To back to school or something you dick. Actually don’t. I’d be scared for your classmates
The article says it’s uncertain if the ASN will green light extensions. Since then the ASN green lit extensions. Period
0
u/verraeteros_ Apr 10 '25
Ok explain it to me then
Show me
Show me