> Americans pay an estimated $20 billion a year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry
We agree: this is inept. However we probably also agree on the goal (get rid of fossil fuels), therefore the question is about the approach: which proportion of nuclear and of renewable energy?
100% nuclear is impossible: not enough uranium, too expensive as it implies over-provisioning reactors which are financially potentially realistic only with a high load factor.
100% renewable is in balance: some think it can be done, other disagree.
Nearly all experts (see IEA, IPCC, McKinsey, Bloomberg...) predict that renewable will, once fossil fuels will be nearly dealt with, produce approximately 70% of our electricity (gridpower). This has a heavy implication for nuclear as it will reduce its load factor => its TCO will skyrocket.
> if there weren't nuclear power energy subsidies, would French prices be higher than their neighbors? That's the question.
This is IMHO certain, see the Cour des comptes' report. EDF history ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_Franc... ) provides many hints: jumpstarted by nationalisations (gifts!), immediately obtaining a monopoly (gift!), benefiting from military and fundamental research budgets (gifts!), very favorable loans from the gov, gov acting as a guarantor for market-provided loans, gov periodically injecting money and often not even obtaining its dividends (or obtaining as stock, that is to say at null value as most of the assets are nuclear plants which cannot be sold, along with huge debts...), speaking of debts: abyssal debts (approx 55 billions €, mid-2024)... not really a resounding success.
Moreover recent nuclear-reactor building projects are expensive failure (Finland, France, China, U.K.). In France the reactor was scheduled to be delivered in 2012 for approx 3,3 billions € and we are waiting for it in 2024 after dissipating around 20 billions €.
> Domestic energy prices in France are 1/3 lower than the EU average, which is significant
This is only about electricity (not "energy": in France fossil fuel are very expensive) and its end-user price is only 22% less than the UE average («prix de l'électricité en moyenne inférieurs de 22 % à ceux pratiqués dans l'UE»).
All good points, and I'm not arguing that we should go full nuclear. But I'm still of the opinion that 100% renewable is an almost impossible target to meet (at least with current technologies) and that if we want to meet climate change targets, nuclear needs to be part of the mix. Not saying it'll be cheap, but the consequences of continuing to burn fossil fuels will be much more expensive.
We agree: this is inept. However we probably also agree on the goal (get rid of fossil fuels), therefore the question is about the approach: which proportion of nuclear and of renewable energy?
100% nuclear is impossible: not enough uranium, too expensive as it implies over-provisioning reactors which are financially potentially realistic only with a high load factor.
100% renewable is in balance: some think it can be done, other disagree.
Nearly all experts (see IEA, IPCC, McKinsey, Bloomberg...) predict that renewable will, once fossil fuels will be nearly dealt with, produce approximately 70% of our electricity (gridpower). This has a heavy implication for nuclear as it will reduce its load factor => its TCO will skyrocket.
> if there weren't nuclear power energy subsidies, would French prices be higher than their neighbors? That's the question.
This is IMHO certain, see the Cour des comptes' report. EDF history ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_Franc... ) provides many hints: jumpstarted by nationalisations (gifts!), immediately obtaining a monopoly (gift!), benefiting from military and fundamental research budgets (gifts!), very favorable loans from the gov, gov acting as a guarantor for market-provided loans, gov periodically injecting money and often not even obtaining its dividends (or obtaining as stock, that is to say at null value as most of the assets are nuclear plants which cannot be sold, along with huge debts...), speaking of debts: abyssal debts (approx 55 billions €, mid-2024)... not really a resounding success.
Moreover recent nuclear-reactor building projects are expensive failure (Finland, France, China, U.K.). In France the reactor was scheduled to be delivered in 2012 for approx 3,3 billions € and we are waiting for it in 2024 after dissipating around 20 billions €.
> Domestic energy prices in France are 1/3 lower than the EU average, which is significant
This is only about electricity (not "energy": in France fossil fuel are very expensive) and its end-user price is only 22% less than the UE average («prix de l'électricité en moyenne inférieurs de 22 % à ceux pratiqués dans l'UE»).
About the Messmer Plan ("French nuclearization"): https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...