> Again, you are saying I said thing I did not say.

I'm saying that the interference of Germany due to propaganda had negligible effect on the french energetic situation.

You are pretending that your "reason" that France was impacted by German propaganda is not a bullshit reason.

You provide a study that fails to show that there was any impact and that there was any real interference. Just that some foundation is funding some article, something that happens all the time and is not a proof of propaganda.

> You voluntarly miss the "it's behind a paywall part" how convenient.

I'm reacting to, quote, "the Financial Time is highly biased". Very easy for you, if you can read the article and you don't like what you read, you can just say "yeah but it's biased".

> The result of the commission are available here, they show a way more nuanced statement that you

The result of the commission says a lot of things that I was already saying, and show that your reasons are at best anecdotical.

I've mentioned, for example, QUOTE FROM MY PREVIOUS COMMENT:

- "the mess the government made with EDF privatization", discussed in chapter 2, section 1 A 2, and chapter 2, section 2.

- "the loss of technical expertise", discussed in chapter 2, section 1 B 2 and chapter 2, section 2 C. A quote from it: "le déclin des compétences dans la filière nucléaire s’inscrit dans le mouvement plus large de la perte du tissu industriel français et de la disparition de nombreux emplois industriels" ("the decline of skills in nuclear is the result of a larger decline in the french industry").

- "the short-term vision where the electricity was sold too cheap and did not create budget for infrastructure maintenance/renewal", discussed in chapter 2, section 1 A 1c and 2b

- "the fact that now we are going toward a flexible grid (something that was not expected even 50 years ago) and that the initial strategy was not accounting for that at all", chapter 2, section 1 A 1b and 1c

- "the fact that the public/politic opinion is stupidly about "nuclear vs renewable" instead of using the best in specific situations", chapter 2, section 1 A 2c

- "the learning in the nuclear sector that things are intrinsically complicated which burst the investment enthusiasm, ...", chapter 2, section 3 B

Your reasons (you say three, but then only manage to explicit two) do not appear in the report as main reasons for the decline of French nuclear. QUOTE FROM YOUR COMMENT

- "aftermath of the covid, that is now completly recovered only as this year.": the report talk about all the problem that started well before covid. It is said that covid increased the problem and that covid arrived "on top" of the existing problems.

- "sabotage of our industry": can you find something about that anywhere?

In fact, the whole report is very much closer to my position than yours. The full chapter 2 explains that the problem of the french nuclear is mainly due to stupid short-term vision rather than just anti-nuclear things (there is some, of course, but the majority is about EDF governance (which includes the state) not doing the correct choices)

> Principally, they are not blaming EDF direction about this failure.

On skill gaps, EDF both says that it's not their responsibility AND that they are building capabilities to properly form new skilled people. So what's the correct one: either they cannot do anything about it and it's not their fault, or they can form people and they failed to start their program when it was needed.

In fact, the situation is the following: EDF got the message "we are slowly closing the nuclear", and, at the same time, saw the skill slowly disappearing but did nothing about it thinking they don't care, they will not need these skills in the future. When the government changed its mind (which was stupid, they should never have pushed to close the nuclear in the first place), then EDF said "well, there is no skills anymore" because they failed to maintain the skills that they should have maintained as long as possible instead of betting that they will not need them.

On the rest, distinguishing EDF from the state is pretty difficult. Decisions were taken in concordance, especially before 2015 where things were already falling apart.

> I suggest to read the report I linked in this comment, which show you are making up shit, the reason are highlighted in it.

In the video you posted, the CEO explicitly said that they get their skilled specialists in other countries.

> It's funny how you claimed being nuanced and we are down to you claiming that closing down fully working plants, that have history of anti-nuclear activists fighting against, and making political alliance in order to close it as "not anti-nuclear".

Did you even read. I've said, I quote: "And of course, the incredible excessive costs have nothing to do with that". I'm not saying that the Green have nothing to do with that, I'm saying that once again, you "forget" to say that Superphénix bad reputation was not just the result of anti-nuclear propaganda, but also of a lot of failures.

Not enough to justify the closing of Superphénix according to me. But again, it's not "it's all anti-nuclear's fault".