> Taxes and levies make the biggest difference. Their share climbed steadily, from 25.6% in 2011 to 40,3% in 2020. These values vary greatly from one country to another, with rates as high as 66% in Denmark and 53% in Germany.

I.e. in Germany, 90% of the Stromsteuer is used to fund the government pension system. So you cannot really compare the household prices between countries and make conclusions about the efficiency of their electricity policies, because a lot of countries just opt for another scheme of government financing through taxes on stuff such as electricity (or gasoline taxes for example, which is also used to fund pensions in Germany).

A feat achieved because France front loaded its nuclear capex. The plants they have are paid off but aging and almost at the end of their life while Germany has been ramping up new generation capacity.

Once Germany is close to 100% green energy their electricity prices will go down a lot.

>Nuclear is both cheaper and less polluting, but I guess it doesn't matter because one dude on twitter posted a big number chart due to a temporary anomaly

It's only cheaper if you already built the plants 40 years ago.

This spike is a sign of things to come. Most nuclear plants in France have about 10-15 years of life left and building a whole set of new ones will cost about half a trillion dollars and take... well, about 10-15 years i suppose. Dont think that wont get bundled into your electric billm

Of course, France could set about extending the life of these plants but that would significantly impact safety.

We barely average 50% green electricity today, at 4x carbon cost of France - and that is before we try to transition heating and transport (cars) to electricity

[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1267500/eu-monthly-whole...

I really think that ANRS takes no risk. Almost all pieces of the oldest nuclear plants have been replaced. The pieces that can't are crucial but don't deteriorate fast by nature ; it is quite well monitored.

I'm saying that despite being 100% against the idea of building new nuclear plants.

1/ The nuclear energy has always rising costs when solar costs are plunging incredibly fast.

2/ 5 conventional missiles on each of our 56 nuclear plants and France surrenders. The risk exists but is limited of a Chernobyl-like incidents. But in all cases, the production will be stopped. So France is out of the game in half an hour. => France might launch 1 nuclear missile to an unpopulated zone in Russia (for example) as a final warning but there is no point of starting a mutual destruction. The nuclear-bomb deterrence doesn't work in such a scenario. :-/ => Our nuclear plants are both easy targets and points of systemic failure of our whole Defense.

3/ There are huge hidden costs: nobody knows how much it will cost to dismantle these plants. Recent studies by pronuclear studies say 275 billions € ; the French public operator has only 90 billions in reserve for it. In truth, nobody knows, we have never done it.

4/ They want to stock the nuclear waste deep underground. Why not, I trust Science - but the process is not reversible and that waste is dangerous for 100,000 years. In case of an unexpected issue, no way to get it out. That's not serious.

5/ Batteries are a field of constant improvement. Very recently, one type has been invented that stores the energy without almost any loss for 12 weeks (it's far from industrialization to the scale where the batteries could compensate for the irregular production of renewables). The hundred of billions needed for new nuclear plants would be a far better use if directed to the huge technological progress needed by renewables energies, hydrogen and batteries. => France has rather safe practices on nuclear matters but most countries are not even near to meet this level of safety. => Finding solutions that work everywhere without risk is the only way to avoid the global climate dereliction. => The pronuclear fanatics in France forget that even if it were the best solution for France, it is certainly not for the world. => The very same fanatics yell that we are anti-science ; no, I am pro-science and an ecologist: I have no doubt that we will make the breakthroughs needed to produce all the energy we need and to avoid unnecessary consumption.

Iran has shown that the path from a civilian use of nuclear fission to an atomic bomb is quite fast. Iran has now bomb-grade uranium concentrated at 20% ; they'll have a bomb within 5 years. And Saudi Arabia has bought a nuclear plant to France, as if they didn't have enough petroleum, natural gas and ... a giganormeous potential of solar energy. They will have the bomb as well. Great!

Putin's atrocious and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has shown that peace is not guaranteed for ever in West Europe. Nuclear plants must be be dismantled asap.

The possibility of war closes the debate about nuclear as the best strategical choice for France: it is not.

That being said, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the decision has already been taken, e.g. going full nuclear. This is just a matter where democracy doesn't apply in France.

No conspiracy theory here. It's not the result of lobbying, it's a matter of "raison d'Etat". The French "deep state" has its own sovereignty grounded on the centralization of electric production and the knowledge and technologies required for nuclear bombs (the bombs + the intercontinental missiles). Hence Arianespace for keeping up on the field of ballistic rockets.

Recycling solar panels (and other stuff used to produce renewable energies) is a real issue. But I wonder why pronuclear fanatics are so sure that we will find technical solutions to dismantle old nuclear centrals and safety stock tens of thousand tons of nuclear waste... but always point the issues and challenges of renewable energies as totally impossible to get over.

Nuclear energy is not the solution for a sustainable world. So France should invest heavily in research and development on renewables energies to find solutions that scale to the needs of 9+ billions people.

There are plenty of discoveries and breakthroughs to make, patents to deposit so that France can reindustrialize and have an positive industrial balance in 20 years.

At the same time, nuclear fission should be pursued. It will cost tens of billions but that's worth it. The EU ought to keep up with China and the US leading that field. The ITER project is international but is getting behind.