They HAVE to export because they can't regulate and they have to sell so the dishonest hidden price scheme they drive with their tax payer doesn't get too bad.
In the end they still need dirty power from countries like Germany. Something which is not carbon-free but also doesn't appear in all those fancy graphics the radioactive Astro-Turf hands out to their followers.
The net decarbonization is still better. It's not that they can't regulate reactor output (they can) it's that running at 100% capacity all the time is more optimal. Even including the fossil fuel imports Frances's carbon intensity of energy is lower.
Regulating nuclear makes it even worse economically.
Today's state of their fleet shows: they missed the train on renewables. Would they have them, they wouldn't have to buy so much dirty power from abroad. Also: others wouldn't have to produce so much dirt because those dirty reactors can be shut down fast.
I mean seriously...they have so much nuclear because they needed the technology for military use. They never did it for the environment or something. It's also not like this is some green energy source. Their failure to diversify costs the rest of Europe money today and will cost it for months. There is absolutely nothing to cherish there. It's not an example for anyone since money is better invested in renewables today already. So what's the point?
Germany releases over 5 times as much CO2 for the same amount of electricity as France. Would France have had cheaper electricity if they used coal, gas like Germany? Sure. But they'd be emitting way more carbon dioxide. The amounts of renewables Germany has deployed is nowhere near enough to offset the amount of fossil fuels they use. Germany doesn't have a renewable grid. They have a fossil fuel grid supplemented by renewables.
> Who cares if they had nuclear because of military goals
I do care if someone desperately tries to sell nuclear as green/sustainable or even wants my taxpayer money to fuel this kind of crap (EU).
> Germany releases over 5 times as much CO2 for the same amount of electricity as France. Would France have had cheaper electricity if they used coal, gas like Germany? Sure.
This is a straw man. I never said they should have build more coal or gas.
I even said that they should have gone with renewables.
> The amounts of renewables Germany has deployed is nowhere near enough to offset the amount of fossil fuels they use.
Germany has actually a LAW to phase out coal completely.
The German taxpayer made renewables a product people can buy all over the world and generate power for small amounts of money. This ridiculous Astro-Turf campaign against Germany only shows where the wind truly comes from: climate change deniers and haters of renewable energy. And yes, yes you can assure me that YOU are different that it's just for the environment etc. etc. However the fact remains: nuclear is out. Money is better invested in renewables.
Face it and don't try to meddle with numbers only because you don't like them (Lazard).
France emits 60 grams of CO2 for every KWh of electricity generated. Germany emits over 300 grams of C02 for the same electricity. The one that's fuddling numbers is the one that's trying to paint the latter as more successful than the former at cubing climate change, despite the vastly larger greenhouse gas emissions.
The difference is that most of France's exports are carbon-free energy.