> Mostly not. Doesn't matter. Your claim, as written, was wrong. > The reality shows the opposite. See the UK: nuclear power does not finance themselves by ma

> Mostly not. Doesn't matter. Your claim, as written, was wrong. > The reality shows the opposite. See the UK: nuclear power does not finance themselves by market mechanisms. Again, I didn't say that it would. I said that anything that is economically sensible finances itself, pretty much by definition. I didn't say nuclear power is sensible and I didn't say that it finances itself. > What does it have do with France what the US does? If your explanation doesn't generalize to the US, then it is wrong. You might as well say France builds nuclear reactors because it is France. You only need a single reactor to build a nuclear arsenal, so having an interest in nuclear weapons is no explanation for why France (or any other country) would invest in building out lots of civil nuclear infrastructure. > They are not bankrupt while they get more government money. You are supporting my thesis. Go back and read it. It's about a private company, contrary to a state, being able to relieve itself of the bill. That's exactly what's happening here, whether Tepco is formally bankrupt or not. > There is lots of money spend on research in Germany ... Way to miss the point... > The Energiewende is not about short-term CO2 reductions. It's a broad long-term project to switch the energy landscape to renewable energy. What's the point of switching electricity to renewables if not CO2 reduction? There's enough coal for hundreds of years. > Coal is next. Good Luck with that.