I don't find it convincing.
Germany has also been struggling with its nuclear-free "Energiewende" for 20 years, and isn't half done with it. And that was the easy half.
Germany's "cheap" renewables-based electricity is the 2nd most expensive in the EU. France's "expensive" nuclear electricity is around half that price, slightly below the EU average price. And France was (and still is) using reliable/cheap nuclear electricity to subsidize other parts of the economy, whereas Germany has the rest of the economy subsidizing renewables.
Energy intensive industries are moving out of Germany, just recently the Supreme Court ruled the various budget tricks the government used to hide the true cost as unconstitutional. The very first attempts to actually reflect those costs in the real budget have sparked protests the likes of which Germany hasn't seen in some time.
Yeah, going swimmingly.
The EPR is a difficult design and at the start of its learning curve. The 14 new plants they are now going to build are apparently going with a simplified design.
The difference is mostly taxes.
In Germany's case, it's taxes they charge for every unit of electricity.
In France's case it's general taxation that they've been using to support the nuclear industry.
And that's for renewables mostly built at the start of the price decline and nuclear mostly built at the start of the price increases.
When you have to limit your argument to cherry picked countries and cherry picked timeframes and cherry picked metrics, it's a sign it a very poor argument.
They may well be trying to create an impression of the cleanness of newly installed power generation, or installed in the coming years but using a celver metonomy, actually graphing all installed power generation and avoiding any text that might alert the reader to the difference between all and new.
