This is a good resource looking at the energy capacity of france: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx https

This is a good resource looking at the energy capacity of france: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil... This resource describes France's nuclear sector as aging: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55259 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55259. Between those two, it's not obvious to me that France could enable more nuclear capacity to account for the rest of their energy needs. I'm not sure I would even agree that GHG neutral is even a thing. Just because a person plants 1000 trees to account for emitting 10 tons of carbon today, the 10 tons of carbon were still emitted today while those trees need decades to even get close to break-even (and in the meantime they can burn, contribute to mono-cultures, possible not grow at all, be double sold as offsets, etc..) More concretely, I think it's like calling a Geothermal plant GHG neutral if it powers a facility that pulls down as much carbon as the thermal plant emits. As an aggregate, there is actually a true net zero there, but the thermal plant is still a positive contributor to emissions.* The first resource linked earlier states it pretty well: "As a result of the 1974 decision, France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and an extremely low level of carbon dioxide emissions per capita from electricity generation, since over 80% of its electricity is from nuclear or hydro." "an extremely low level of carbon dioxide emissions per capita" is AFAIK as good as it gets. I'm not sure why/where the energy vs electricity different really matters here. Perhaps you can help me out? Googling for some other numbers, it looks like France's total emissions are 270M tons, with an energy sector emitting 40M tons, even if that energy sector were zero'd out - France would still emit 230M tons of GHG. *Low carbon != zero carbon output. This resource shows nuclear as being a very low carbon source of electricity, akin to wind and solar (and even less than geothermal, all quite surprising to me): https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/how-can-nuclear-combat-climate-change.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/how-can-nuclear... I think I might be extra sensitive to the phrase "GHG neutral", I believe that phrase is very often 100% PR and 0% reality.