> Renewables-produced electricity reduces fossil the amount -fuel-produced electricity

Why the hell would you show me the same graph I showed you earlier, but with only 3 years of history? That graph, over time, shows that fossil hovers around 10%, has been for decades now. Renewables is not decreasing fossil use here.

> A large part of resources needed by electrification isn't needed to build electricity-producing equipment.

As France is a market economy, the issue isn't resources, money is.

> Starting right now to build in order to replace 40-years old nuclear plants

Here is the issue: you don't give a fuck about CO2, all you care about is for renewables to replace nuclear, another clean energy source. All of your discourse is warped and dishonest because you want to pretend that you care about catbon emissions when, in fact, you don't.

If you cared about carbon emissions you would focus on means to lower carbon emissions: electrifiying.

> Why the hell would you show me the same graph

I quoted it 4 days ago (see above). I propose my interpretation of it, for the objective reader to make his mind. Renewables' share is up, therefore they replace fossil fuels because without renewables France should burn more fossil fuels.

>> A large part of resources needed by electrification isn't needed to build electricity-producing equipment.

> As France is a market economy, the issue isn't resources, money is.

If in your opinion each and every resource (expertise, material...) used to deploy electricity-producing plants is 100% adequate for electrifying let's say we live in distinct universes.

> Here is the issue: you don't give a fuck

No arguments, therefore you rant about what (in your opinion) I think. This is moot.

> If you cared about carbon emissions you would focus on means to lower carbon emissions: electrifiying.

I already explained, above, why deploying electricity-producing plants is just as important and urgent. You didn't even try to counter-argument.