This article is in French and is thus inaccessible for many on HN. It sounds like it's assuming that there's going to be vast amounts of storage to accommodate

This article is in French and is thus inaccessible for many on HN. It sounds like it's assuming that there's going to be vast amounts of storage to accommodate renewables intermittency - at least if "stocker" and "dèstocker" refer to storage. This is very wishful thinking. Storage at anywhere near relevant scales is not achievable with existing storage mechanisms. This is often the case for most plans that call for a significant portion of energy coming from renewables. Intermittency would otherwise require a carbon-free source to provide energy during periods of non-production. Unfortunately for intermittent sources, peak demand coincides with periods of non production in the evening. If you build enough nuclear plants to fulfill this period of non-production, then you have enough nuclear plants to fulfill demand for the rest of the day and thus the intermittent sources are redundant. If someone does eventually invent a storage system that's nearly free and can scale to terawatt hours then renewables are great. But until then, they do not provide a path to decarbonization.