>> Given their financial state I'm quite sure they will be interested in obtaining and selling gridpower.

> Ok, so we disagree. My experience is that initiatives like this that depend on the participation of large numbers of independent entities to even get started, usually fail.

The entire European Union was aggregated this way. One can doubt it is efficient or even good, however participation of a large number of nations is a done deal.

>>> Nuclear seem to have lower emissions than all "renewable" sources

>> This is contested as there was no solid assessment since 2014,

> I was just referencing the link you provided.

As noted there is AFAIK no solid more recent meta-study.

>> France really wants it, and struggle in a quagmire since the mid 2000's.

>> France already succeeded

France built its nuclear fleet starting 50 years ago. It was then a rich (thanks to the 30 Glorieuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses ), shock-full of industries, electricity consumption is then the third of current amounts, and the project is highly strategic (due to the risk of oil embargo, as illustrated by effects of then recent wars in Israel).

Nothing of this is true anymore, and it makes for a huge difference.

> France actually intends to build new ones.

Indeed, since 2004 France tries to build an EPR reactor, the building process started in 2007 and was planned to deliver the reactor in 2012. It may be delivered in 2023, for nearly 6 times the budget...

> paywalled

You may find a copy at usual 'unofficial' sources (not that I hint to commit any potentially illegal action).

> what it would cost in terms of investments.

It studies wind regimes, not economics. This is a valid argument. The bottomline here is mainly the proportion of production surpluses which will become consumed electricity.

> In the 1960's, forecasters promised that nuclear would provide energy so cheap it would essentially be free. Then there was a backlash that lasted almost two
> generations.

The real backlash started after TMI and was at its highest after Chernobyl (1986).

> Now, maybe, the understanding of nuclear is approaching neutral again.

In 2010 (just before Fukushima) it could be so.

> wind power will hit a similar wall. The public will be disillusioned

This is possible, however the probability of a major blunder à la TMI or Chernobyl implying wind turbines is very low.

> renewables surely will take over, and maybe eventually solar will be so cheap that hydrogen can be produced at a lower cost than natural gas.

Why not? However I doubt anyone now alive will see this.

> Until then, I think we should make sure we keep up our nuclear production

This is rather solid, but one has to consider some implications (risk of major accident, dangerous waste to be disposed of,
I know: waste isn't a problem for you, however no nation (bar, to an extent, South Korea and Finland) have potentially proper long-term storage for it, and strictly not a single one has sufficient storage for its active fleet. This may not be as simple as some think, and this is not only a matter of "extreme" (useless) political measures: this stuff is nasty.

> and add as much as possible.

This is debatable, as building reactors become more and more slow and expensive, even in zones where the local power wants it and can enforce its will (China). Moreover each buck spent for this isn't available for a 'renewable' project.