Those where low wholesale prices via government subsides. Germany “subsidized” very early wind/solar adoption by forcing electricity consumers to pay through the nose for it.

That isn’t to say either model is better, just that you can’t look at wholesale prices and see the underlying economic realities. Time is running out on early German subsides where France still needs to pay for decommissioning.

France has a great track record with nuclear and I hope they can continue to leverage that excellence. Doing so cost effectively is more difficult especially when adding ever more inexpensive wind/solar generation to the EU grid.

Wind/solar generation have fundamental availability constraints that require supplementing with on-demand generation capacity. Nuclear is not exactly an answer for on-demand capacity because it is not possible to rapidly spin up and down, but having additional nuclear availability should allow France to have greater clean, stable energy capacity. It additionally introduces the possibility of broader energy exports to other European nations.

Nuclear can spin up and down rapidly, it’s simply really expensive to do so. In the mid term heavily subsidized Nuclear is the fastest way for most countries to reach a 90+% clean grid. The risk is ever cheaper grid storage can quickly render such investments obsolete.

A nuclear power plant that comes online in 5 years and operates for another 40-50 is going to be part of an extremely different grid in 25-55 years from now. That’s why private investors are so hesitant, but governments have more flexibility.

It could be that subsidized grid storage is a more cost effective solution, but that’s also limited by manufacturing capacity.

> A nuclear power plant that comes online in 5 years

The article says 6 facilities, of which just one is expected to be operational in 15 years. I think this is the reason nobody except France is pushing nuclear. Starting today, by the time your first nuclear plant comes online, you will have been forced to deploy an alternative making it redundant. People make the case for nuclear being cost effective today, but I don't see any predictions about it being cost effective in 15+ years either.

> Starting today, by the time your first nuclear plant comes online, you will have been forced to deploy an alternative making it redundant.

The delay is because these power plants are supposed to replace existing power plants that will be taken offline in 13+ years. What’s notable is they aren’t 1:1 replacements so they are going to end up with a lower percentage of nuclear power.

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

PS: I reference the a 5 year delay because that’s roughly when you’re spending real money. France could easily back out of this plan in ~7 years having spent less than 1% of what it would cost to actually build a reactor.

"Starting today, by the time your first nuclear plant comes online, you will have been forced to deploy an alternative making it redundant."

If only we had the ability to plan energy policy decades ahead, because we know how long each powerplant will last, and when it will need to be replaced! If only we had energy consumption and CO2 emissions predictions going forwards and backward almost a century!

Not with fusion: the fusion reactors we aim at building eventually will have no relationship with our submarine fleet roaming the ocean pointing nukes at everyone.

you need to prepare for what you know what will happen, not just what you hope will happen.