Electricity cost to the final user is the only metrics that matter.
Anything in the energy market is heavily subsidies: petrol, gas, RNG, everything, not only nuclear.
France was having one of the lowest electricity price in Europe for more than 2 decades mainly due to Nuclear[^1]. This is not anymore due to the European common energy market.
[1]: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/59f1e791-...
By that logic the difference between solar and nuclear doesn't matter since the cost is the same.
The fact of the matter is that we don't know the cost of nuclear in France since it gets lumped together with other profits/losses. This is unfortunate because it makes comparing very difficult. The claims you made are therefore unsubstantiated.
Why does the answer to those questions make your claims about renewables needing storage nonsensical?
Energy is was more than 70% nuclear in France. The rest is mainly hydro, solar when available and a bit of Gas [1]. Some reactors were built before and after this 20 years nuclear rush, this is why 50% in my previous message.[^2]
[1]: https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/regional-data#producti...
[2]: https://twitter.com/superbello123/status/1505287449995579396
France peaked around 75% of electricity from nuclear. Energy is bigger than just electricity and generally includes transport and fuel for home and industrial heating, which puts Framce back around a half of energy from clean sources.
This 75% of electricity is (perhaps not coincidentally) very close to the 80% that many people feel modern renewables can provide without any major storage issues. Because that 20/25% leeway means you can just use fossil backup to fill any gaps where your clean supply doesn't match your demand.
But, the anti-renewable types who point to nuclear to justify their outdated opinions on renewables never seem to care that nuclear was only ever part of a larger system. They meticulously count every penny spent on grid upgrades and storage for one, but not the other. Pumped hydro and nuclear is a classic combination for decades.
They'll attack time-of-use pricing as some kind of attack on liberty even though its a standard thing to do with excess nuclear capacity overnight, in places like France, for example.
Comparing Nuclear and Solar cost is like comparing the cost of rain to the cost tap water. It is fundamentally stupid.
- Nuclear provides a stable continuous source of power and matches existing power grid.
- Solar need more than three time the capacity for the same level of power, need profound infrastructure changes and required to be associated with Lithium Storage or/and Power2Gas or/and water pump storage.
> More prosaically, the cost of solar only goes down, while the cost of nuclear seems to only go up.
France has been able in 20 years to create out of nowhere more than 30 nuclear power plants covering more than 50% of the country energy needs for a fraction of the cost of an EPR today. Privatisation, loss of Engineering knowledge and mainly lack of politics support are the element to blame here. Not nuclear energy itself.
> Reminder that Greenpeace started out fighting against nuclear weapons and their testing
Good. Then they should stick to their fundamental and go protest a bit against Nuclear weapon testing in North Korea. That will make them much more relevant that when they do support the construction of (Russian provided) coal and gaz power plants in Germany.
Sticking to their fundamental might have helped to prevent the shit show we are now in: now Germany cannot even afford to stop few Gaz pipelines from Russia without putting the country in the dark.