That doesn’t make sense. The goal is decarbonation, not arbitrary account. The sole reason to mix together things that don’t go together is making bad faith arguments like in this case.

If the goal is "decarbonation" then the only thing that matters is the bottom line. If nuclear truly leads to a lower net carbon output (which I'm sure it does, unless using nuclear power somehow causes people to heat their homes more or drive ICE vehicles more) then what are you worried about?

People are intentionally muddling the case to make France success looks less successful. I like how you pretend to be candid while actually making the situation worse. Always funny to observe.

> People are intentionally muddling the case to make France success looks less successful.

It’s just not true at all, lol. Even by this way more useful metric France is doing quite well, substantially better than Germany for example. People are using this metric because it’s just useful while electricity footprint is only useful when you’re talking about very specific scenarios (like, how long until a BEV emits less carbon than an ICE).

About 50% of the primary energy consumption in France is low emissions.