> the declining share is nuclear

OMG, is it a joke? Consumption is stable, OK? Nuclear produced less, OK? Therefore renewables compensated for nuclear declining production, OK? Therefore burning more fossil fuels was not necessary, OK? Therefore renewables replaced them, OK?

> the bottleneck is money

My point is solid even given this perspective: the way public money is used is of paramount importance: government recently ordered new nuclear reactors, and also subsidizes renewables in order to compensate past huge subsides to nuclear. More money here, less money there.

> We don't live in a command economy where material resources and workers are assigned by the state on a given project.

Read above.

> you don't even acknowledge raw data

Raw data, as explained, shows that renewables enabled France to avoid burning more fossil fuel. This is a fact, like it or not.

Nuclear is not down for intrinsic reasons, it is down because it comes after renewables in merit order, and therefore when renewables are available, it is scaled down.

In low renewables availability episodes, there isn’t more fossil production, we simply ramp nuclear up.