[phh]

Even though there are political reasons, the biggest reason is... we had enough reactors for our own usage.

We built them so fast, that even if we had cross-partisan will to keep forever using nuclear, we'd still have 30-40 years of gap without making any new reactor. And after a generation of engineers, we need to make reactors again and we're basically doing it from scratch again.

There are other reasons: people's fear of nuclear became quite real (either because of greenpeace, or local green political parties). There's also a bit of hubris I think, rather than making some "easy" "usual" reactor model, we decided to do our brand new own, which has its own cost: If Flamanville's EPR had succeeded, we would likely have made more reactors and we would already be producing >100% of nuclear power

[adrianN]

Only a third of France's primary power consumption comes from nuclear. That's a long way to go to carbon neutrality.

[trashtester]

In other words, France needs to hurry up and double if not triple their nuclear capacity, so they can switch to electric cars and heating.

Somewhere to the north-east of Strasbourg would be ideal, not only for the abundant water supply, but also because the location is ideal for export to places in Europe that have not invested enough in stable sources of energy, lately. And if France plans to import power when the wind is blowing in those countries, the grid capacity out of that area will be needed anyway.

[ncmncm]

The more nukes they build, the farther behind the rest of the world they will get.

The rest of the world will be building out renewables, and getting much more power for each euro than France will. France will have more expensive power than everyone else in exact proportion to their nuke construction.

Ultimately, the French will buy their power from outside, because the nukes will be unable to deliver at a matching price, and the plants will be mothballed. French taxpayers will be the poorer.

[trashtester]

> Ultimately, the French will buy their power from outside.

My prediction is the opposite, that nuclear will remain cheaper than wind in northern temperate climates for another generation.

I suppose time will tell.

[ncmncm]

Nukes are already more expensive. Renewables cost is still in free-fall.

[rswskg]

Not including transport? That's awful.

[phh]

One third is including transport and heating.