If the economics are impossible, how is it that France currently runs 70% of its grid on nuclear and has electricity costs substantially lower than the EU average?
We don't know how much those reactors cost to build then (it was mixed with the military nuclear program and the paperwork I understand does not exist to disentangle the spending). They are cheap now because they are not being charged for the cost of their construction. We do know that France cannot afford to replace them now; new reactors would be far out of the running economically.
So economically viable if the government subsidizes the construction. I would be happy for my tax money to go to a project that gets 70% of electricity generation off of carbon.
Subsidy doesn't change what the technology costs, it just changes how that cost is paid.
Subsidy can make sense, but not because shuffling euros around under walnut shells makes the cost disappear. The argument for subsidies is generally that it helps technologies move down experience curves. This improvement is a positive externality that a pure market would not necessarily reward. Unfortunately, nuclear (and nuclear in France) has been showing NEGATIVE experience effects.
That is not true the Cour des Comptes has extensive documentation for its cost, also nuclear LTO should be preferred, but replacement is economically possible.
