> You completely forgot that there's companies using electricity Do you really believe that 'per capita' only takes into account electricity produced for indus

> You completely forgot that there's companies using electricity Do you really believe that 'per capita' only takes into account electricity produced for industrial applications? It doesn't. The subtitle ("Annual average electricity generation per person") seems clear to me. Your "a single French person is using 2.5GWh/year" assertion is not backed up and clearly wrong. As the referenced graph ( https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-electricity-generation?tab=chart&country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-electricity-ge... ) shows its around 8MWh/year (France is a net electricity exporter), which is more than 300 times more. > France produces close to 500TWh/year. Indeed. France has approx 68 millions inhabitants. Let's consider (* 68M 8MWh): 544TWh Bingo, I was right, isn't it? How much with 2.5GWh instead of 8MWh? > So yeah, I confirm what I said, LOL > nobody want to use their car in Europe https://www.reinventingparking.org/2013/02/cars-are-parked-95-of-time-lets-check.html https://www.reinventingparking.org/2013/02/cars-are-parked-9... > The reality is in front of your eyes, the statistics Don't you understand that in order to know if a continental 'renewable' mix will alleviate a fair part of the effect of 'intermittency' on production, we have to take into account all potential wind-turbine sites on the whole continent, NOT the very weak existing fleet (especially at the time of this document) of a few neighboring nations? Here is a published serious study. Table 6, in section 3.3.1, is a concise way to convey it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115017013 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211... I won't answer to your mere opinions (assertions provided without any source). According to you the French nuclear program was "killed in 2012 by president Hollande and even written officially in the law in 2015 with a maximum of 50% nuclear production." This is complete BS: as showed in my previous answer everything ran as usual, this law didn't change anything. A law is not magically effective. What did it cause? The only theoretical effect of this law was the shutdown of the "Fessenheim" nuclear plant, the oldest one, exposed to seismic risk (Germany and Switzerland owned part of the plant and wanted it closed). This plant was only 2,8% of the fleet capacity! Moreover preserving this plant would have been easy, however EDF didn't want to do so. Details (French ahead): https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/accueil#h.ttv1vwpccwyu https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/accueil#h.... The effect of this law was soon postponed to 2035: https://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2018/11/27/20002-20181127ARTFIG00260-emmanuel-macron-tente-de-dessiner-une-politique-energetique-equilibree.php https://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2018/11/27/20002-2018112... Even at this date it would be moot because approximately 60% of France final energy is provided by fossil fuels, which have to be booted, implying a massive electrification and therefore a real need to produce more electricity... creating space for nuclear inside those 50%. Then this law was merely abrogated, and 50% became a minimum: https://www.liberation.fr/environnement/nucleaire/le-gouvernement-renonce-a-lobjectif-de-reduction-a-50-de-la-part-du-nucleaire-dans-la-production-delectricite-20230117_YTOTKZDPTFHNHISIORQKFMZ6PM/ https://www.liberation.fr/environnement/nucleaire/le-gouvern... Allow me to repeat: which practical effect had this law? "That's amamazing, you are plain denying reality"... OMG!