The government policy for a reduction to 50% is not based on issues with nuclear power itself. As far as I have seen, there are mainly 2 reasons mentioned in the public debate: i) a concern about the disposal of nuclear wastes and the long-term cost of their storage, and ii) the desire to follow other countries' policies, with a focus on wind, water and sunlight, rather than leading the way with the cheapest and most modern solution for electricity production.
The decision was written in the law in 2015 [1,2], with a statement that renewable electricity (wind, water) should reach 40% of the production, which implies that nuclear power should not account for 70% in the future.
Overall, I believe this is not a bad idea because i) renewable electricity is bound to get better thanks to worldwide research, and ii) it is smart not to put all your eggs in the same basket.
The decision was written in the law in 2015 [1,2], with a statement that renewable electricity (wind, water) should reach 40% of the production, which implies that nuclear power should not account for 70% in the future.
Overall, I believe this is not a bad idea because i) renewable electricity is bound to get better thanks to worldwide research, and ii) it is smart not to put all your eggs in the same basket.
[1] https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI0000... (in French)
[2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_relative_%C3%A0_la_transit... (in French)