Sigh... Coal is only useful for base load. The spool up time for coal is too slow for peaking.
Natural gas is ideal for peaking since you can use it in gas turbine plants for peaking since the spool up time is so fast.
I showed you references do you have any data at all to back up what you are saying?
France may or may not use natural gas for base load but many nations do since it is so cheap and clean.
I would say that the engineers in France are knowledgeable and I would also bet that they would agree with what I am saying. Too bad it is the political parties that want to cut nuclear.

"It would not ... as most CO2 is produced by cars, house heating and industry."
Since renewables only generate electricity we can ignore all none electrical sources as far as nuclear and renewables. Unless you want to count the tiny number of passive solar heating installations.
If you look at this graphic http://energytransition.de/fil...
You will see that France gets around 10% from hydro. You will also see that France still gets some power from coal which is baseload power is is ideal to replace with nuclear. The natural gas is probably split between base load and peaking load. Replacing the base load with nuclear is again a simple matter the peaking is a more difficult issue which is why I suggested that France should convert their hydro from a base load to a peaking source aka as pumped storage. The power stored would come from a combination of both renewables and nuclear.
As to your comment about where the majority of CO2 comes from do you have any sources?
My research shows that home heating in france is more often than not electrical heating. https://www.justlanded.com/eng...

Do you have any real data or just insults?

Possibly. If the summary is correct, this would be abysmally bad. Although it seems the vulnerability was only there for a short time, and they possibly did not fix, but roll-back to get rid of it. Fixes take some time, roll-backs are almost instantaneous. Roll-backs can only be done for an not very old previous version though, so they likely had one that was still fine.

Then testing either sucks completely or ignores security functionality. This really is an absolute basic thing to test, just as testing that giving a wrong password does not give you access. The state of practical software engineering seems to still be abysmal, even after this problem has been known for a few decades. It is high time to legally bar amateurs from doing software that has any security functionality that protects customer assets and data.

Relevance to my statement: none.

No, I disagree with it being "unclear why the decrypted version cannot be saved or otherwise copied in some manner". It is quite clear that it can.

Some reading comprehension required when trying to tell other people what they mean to say....

I disagree. It it quite clear that the decrypted email can easily be copied in digital and analog form. This thing is utterly worthless as a security feature.

In essence, the email can "self-destruct" if the receiver allows it. I think there might be a slight security problem here, such as the "designers" of this thing not having even a basic understanding of IT security.

Even better: This thing has a digital hole. Incompetent security-wannabes come up with things like these time and again, but they never work because they cannot work.

You can keep them by screenshot. You can forward them by screenshot. The security value of this feature is zero. At best it represents a mild annoyance to the receiver that wants to keep or forward them. Snake-oil "security" at its best.

Ah, so that annoyance. I usually leave pages that do that on the web as well and right away. They obviously do not care about their visitors. Probably the only thing these do is annoy people, I cannot really imagine anybody paying attention to them.

Interesting. Apparently, this is yet another case of a "journalist" spicing up the story, only to lose its relevance and accuracy completely.

To scientists and engineers, it is. And with good reason.

I don't think Meg wants so save the company. Charley was just completely incompetent, but Meg strikes me as intentionally evil.