France exported and imported a vast amounts of electricity during it’s nuclear hay day and still needed huge subsidies. In effect they where little different than people living near a local nuclear reactor getting most of their power from it while extremely dependent on the wider electric grid to meet demand and lower overall prices. Which as odd as it sounds demonstrated civilian nuclear inability to scale as they still needed to reduce power plant utilization by ~10%.

And then check out the cost overruns on Flamanville 3. What is now, 4x the initial cost promise? Or is it 6x?

New nuclear is dead in France just like it is in the US.

Also see electricitymap.org

Because France was desperate to have its own nuclear weapons.

It was not economic for them either (tho back in the day it displaced coal - try having a coal plant next door)

France's nuclear power program actually displaced oil. France had a lot of oil fired electric power plants in the 1960s when it was a cheap fuel. As a reaction to the oil price shocks of the 1970s, France committed to the "Messmer Plan" for nuclear electricity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messme...

France demonstrated its first fission bomb in 1960 and its first thermonuclear bomb in 1968:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_des...

The 1970s and 1980s build up of nuclear power in France had nothing to do with desperation to have its own nuclear weapons. France already had them before the Messmer Plan.

"France's nuclear power program actually displaced oil"

No. Oil is much cheaper

To maintain a nuclear arsenal a nuclear industry is needed.

It is the only economic justification for nuclear power

So you don't think something can be expensive because it is heavily regulated? Or do you just think it is not possible with less regulation?

What is the point of bringing up economics when we are talking about life and death? How can you even measure if something is economic or not if you haven't defined what a human life is worth?