The current discussion is France wanting to directly subsidize existing paid-off nuclear plants with EU money because they are not competitive on the European whole-sale market anymore.
The other side argue France can do it using their own funds if they deem it necessary.
If taking into account the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) in isolation, variable renewables are more competitive.
If taking into account the System LCOE (sum of generation, integration and storage costs to reach equivalent stable supply), then nuclear wins - and that doesn't even account for the VRE's huge land use.
"Firmed renewables" are cheaper than or equal in cost to new nuclear today [1]. Renewables and storage are on an exponential cost reduction and learning curve, while nuclear famously has gotten more expensive with each generation [2]. Given that nuclear is uncompetitive against against renewables today, adding a 15-20 year lead-time just makes it laughable. Then another 30-40 years to turn a profit.
Nuclear is a technological dead-end economically. Perfect for niche applications like submarines, but not for the grid.
Interesting Lazard study. First time I see such investment guys so optimistic about grid-scale storage beyond the currently supply-limited pumped hydro.
The other side argue France can do it using their own funds if they deem it necessary.
https://www.ft.com/content/b1dbd7b4-d8b9-45eb-bd18-4976f7c9a...