> I'm not sure how you can justify destroying our existing working nuclear infrastructure with science.

The working nuclear infrastructure was destroyed, but not because of the Greens.

In the case of Fessenheim, the closing was part of a reshuffle of the system to replace it with the more efficient Flamanville (which failed because Flamanville is having big delays, which is one aspect of the failing of the french nuclear infrastructure, still not due to the Greens). You have to understand that the electricity grid is a complex puzzle: you cannot just add an important power plant in the middle without closing other plants (if you supply more electricity than the demand, you have a blackout). I don't agree with the choice of closing Fessenheim, but the arguments behind it are way smarter than the brainwashed "it's the evil Greens". For example, when you build a new nuclear power (which costs A LOT), you need to prove it will makes profit. If at the same time, someone says "Fessenheim, planned to run for 40 years (and therefore close in 2010) will, surprise, run for more years, and will supply the electricity to the same region", then the investors of Flamanville realize that their margin will drop, and the project itself can end up being cancelled.

Closing Fessenheim was both a good politic move to calm down the Greens and the anti-nuclear population while also helping the nuclear sector by boosting the chance of success of Flamanville (removing the old tech of Fessenheim to replace it by Flamanville is a clear gain for the sector). And it was also very good for the brainwashing of the pro-nuclear who were able to pretend that they were victim of the Greens.

> Solar and wind projects were made interesting only through a high level of market-rigging legislation,

Except that nuclear is even more heavily subsidized and that there are a lot of market-rigging legislation to support a market that, normally, should fail. The nuclear market is really crazy: you need to put a lot of money based on predictions of how the electricity will look like in 10 years, crossing your fingers that all the very sensitive elements have no defect, and that you will find competent workers by then (it's not the case for renewable, which does not need huge initial investment, very sensitive elements, high training). This is basically just flipping a coin. No one wants to invest in nuclear, it's just not a good market, and it was able to exist in France only because the government was distorting the market.

> forcing edf to buy back electricity produced at a much higher cost than nuclear.

And again, this is certainly not because of the Greens. The reason is because the pro-nuclear but also pro-private sector french government decided to privatize the electricity sector in France. EDF, while public, had a lot of strong asset, so the government distorted the market by kick-starting possible competitors with this kind of non-sense. The french government idea was that if it's a free market, private competitors will magically stop draining the government money. Except that the nuclear market is way less attractive that they thought it was, and at the same time, the renewable energy market was also very unattractive in France, because the government was so pro-nuclear. So France had the worst of the two sides: no new nuclear, not much new renewable, still having to pay a lot to maintain the sector, and the owner of the nuclear power plant, EDF, now losing a ton of money and not being able to invest to maintain the quality of nuclear.

But, yeah, "it's all the Greens fault". It would be funny if such stupidity was not coming with brainwashed militants who do all they can to stop rational decisions.