Nope. Electricity exports are officially exported at a loss, since the average price per MWh exported is generally slightly lower than the average French spot price ( https://assets.rte-france.com/prod/public/2025-04/2025-04-09... , page 87). According to the sound approach established by Mr. Boiteux, this price must compensate for production costs as well as investments.

The average market price is decreasing because the renewable energy sector is expanding across the continent, thus supplying more and more electricity at a production cost that is increasingly lower than that of nuclear power.

According to RTE, France will export 92.3 TWh in 2025 (page 75), paid €5.4 billion (page 15), meaning that the average price per MWh will be €58.7. However, this renewable energy sector (considered fully amortized) will produce electricity at a cost of €60.3 according to the CRE (which considers it fully amortized and therefore neglects the bulk of the investment), and at around €78 according to EDF ( https://www.edf.fr/sites/groupe/files/epresspack/6300/CP_Con... ), which wants to build EPR2 reactors and therefore needs to have the necessary funds.

In short, France is exporting at €58.70 a year when it needs to sell for at least €78 to finance its future reactors, thus "using up" its current fleet without setting aside enough money to replace it.

Worse still: if the costs of the EPR2 reactors exceed forecasts, as all EPR construction projects (Finland, France, China, and the UK) have done, the deficit will increase even further.

Fixed costs (investments, maintenance, depreciation of the EPR alone, etc.) are by definition paid whether the fleet produces or not. Therefore, exporting at a price higher than the variable costs (paid only if the plant produces) is a lesser evil because the difference covers a portion of the fixed costs: it is less expensive to export at a slight loss than not to produce and lose more (in technical terms: the gross margin helps cover fixed costs).

However, claiming that nuclear power is profitable simply because of electricity exports is misleading, and the ideal solution would be to produce electricity at the lowest possible cost, therefore using renewable energy sources.

Furthermore, a portion of France's electricity is generated from renewables, so attributing exports solely to nuclear power is misleading.

No, it's correct, the total costs of the 2022 bailout was almost 10bn, and that was to get control over a company that had over 50bn in debt.

Furthermore it was discovered that the plants had neglected maintenance that had to be undertaken rightaway, that had nothing to do with the TRV.

Of course, the TRV didn't help, it caused a loss of 18bn in 2022 on top of everything else, but things were bad already.

So even if the mentioned 5 bn export now was pure profit - which is isn't - it would take 15-20 years to cover the bailout that has already taken place. The 100 billion of investments until 2035 is in addition to that.

And they will have to sell their power on markets that will increasingly often have free electricity from solar and wind. How do you pay 1000 educated plant operators when electricity prices are negative?

Unfortunately nuclear power isn't the kind of thing you can try and then walk away from when it turns out to be a bad idea. Which is likely the main reason it's still around.