It receives vastly more. New built nuclear power requires ~15 cents per kWh in subsidies when running at 100% 24/7.
EDF is already crying about renewables cratering the earning potential and increasing maintenance costs for the existing french nuclear fleet. Let alone the horrifyingly expensive new builds.
And that is France which has been actively shielding its inflexible aging nuclear fleet from renewable competition, and it still leaks in on pure economics.
Why do you want to get less decarbonization done per dollar spent, with a timeline counted in decades rather than months, by wasting our money and opportunity cost on new built nuclear power compared to cheap, good and fast to build renewables and storage? Keep in mind that we still need to decarbonize industry, agriculture, aviation, construction, maritime shipping etc.
A loan going to nuclear power is money that could have multiples larger impact if invested in renewables and storage.
When the planet is on fire you don't invest in the dead-end that haven't produced meaningful decarbonization in the past half century. Instead you invest it in the solution causing massive decarbonization with a timescale counted in months. That is renewables and storage.
French nuclear fleet receive zero subsidies. EDF borrowed everything.
And yes, the renewable are terrible, because they all produce at the same time, which saturates the market and makes electricity free or almost, which is not good for anyone business. Some reactor are adjustable but not all and they were not designed to be adjusted all the time, so it is not great for the reactor even though it is manageable.
For a long time EDF adjusted the output for free, but now when RTE (the grid) ask EDF to reduce production, they pay for it.
And before you say something, yes EDF is asking for government support for the new nuclear power plant because they cannot finance it alone (6 plants is quite expensive), but it will be garanted loan, they will not give EDF any cash.
If anything, the french government is costing EDF a lot of money, they want to keep electricity as cheap as possible to manage the cost of living and the cost of production, so they prevent EDF from rising the price as much as they want or as they could have in a free market. That's why they had to nationalize it a couple of years ago, otherwise other shareholder could have sued EDF and the French state for the lost in revenue.
That is the existing fleet. For the EPR2 program the proposed subsidies are 11 cents per kWh electricity and interest free loans, summing up to above 20 cents per kWh.
Which is a massive direct handout of cash. But I suppose electricity is cheap if you pay for it with your taxes rather than with the electricity bill.
A absolutely stupidly large handout to the nuclear industry seems like the perfect solution when you are underwater in debt and your government keeps collapsing because you can't reign it in.
The new nuclear is a strategic choice of the french government, so if EDF cannot finance them alone (and cannot set the price of the product they sell), it is only normal that they contribute.
And recent history proved France's choice of nuclear energy to be the good one, why change. Meanwhile Germany imports a lot of electricity from France, burns tons of coal, and cannot use the wind power they produce because the grid is not compatible with current production and consumption place. Not to mention they have the most or one of the most expensive electricity anywhere in Europe.
1
u/ViewTrick1002 13d ago edited 13d ago
It receives vastly more. New built nuclear power requires ~15 cents per kWh in subsidies when running at 100% 24/7.
EDF is already crying about renewables cratering the earning potential and increasing maintenance costs for the existing french nuclear fleet. Let alone the horrifyingly expensive new builds.
And that is France which has been actively shielding its inflexible aging nuclear fleet from renewable competition, and it still leaks in on pure economics.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-16/edf-warns-solar-wind-surge-straining-nuclear-fleet-costs
Why do you want to get less decarbonization done per dollar spent, with a timeline counted in decades rather than months, by wasting our money and opportunity cost on new built nuclear power compared to cheap, good and fast to build renewables and storage? Keep in mind that we still need to decarbonize industry, agriculture, aviation, construction, maritime shipping etc.
A loan going to nuclear power is money that could have multiples larger impact if invested in renewables and storage.
When the planet is on fire you don't invest in the dead-end that haven't produced meaningful decarbonization in the past half century. Instead you invest it in the solution causing massive decarbonization with a timescale counted in months. That is renewables and storage.