France's most powerful nuclear reactor connected to grid after 17-year build

Nuclear is subsidized? I think you've got that backwards. Renewables are HEAVILY subsidized in many places (rightfully so), nuclear isn't.

Nuclear would be, in fact, the cheapest form of generation if you factor in storage which is a requirement for a functional grid based on renewables, and aforementioned regulatory handicaps weren't in place.

A grid based on nuclear for the base load (the always-on stuff like various industries) + renewables is a far better solution than dragging on fossil fuels for longer and longer, or trying to make 100% renewables work with gigantic amounts of expensive storage.

>Certain groups (funded by dirty energy companies) have pushed an idea that nuclear isn't Safe

Nuclear isn't safe. You should still not pick mushrooms in parts of germany because it isn't. It's an inherently dangerous technology, which you can only try to mitigate.

>Nuclear has been strategically handicapped though because they know it'd destroy their business if it's able to compete on a level playing field.

Nuclear can only work because it is heavily subsidized. If it had to compete on a level playing field, not a single plant would ever have been built in history, as they are uninsurable on the free market and no investor would touch them with a stick without huge government guarantees.

It's the most expensive form of power generation there is, and in 2024 with renewables as good as they are it is just plain unnecessary to sink resources into this dead end.

4 times budget sounds more than it is. You have to underbid to actually get contracts for construction and then it also depends on what was actually missing in the specification.

Big projects are never on budget because the budget is just an arbitrary number of lowballing the best case estimate

As others have mentioned, it isn't for a practical reason. Nuclear is not that difficult to build. Look at China. Certain groups (funded by dirty energy companies) have pushed an idea that nuclear isn't safe and had more and more bureaucracy and regulations pushed onto it. Sure, some is needed, as it's also needed for other sources. Nuclear has been strategically handicapped though because they know it'd destroy their business if it's able to compete on a level playing field.

Now do Georgia's Vogtle reactors 3 and 4, which came in at 34 billion for 2 x 1200mw plants, 21 billion over the original 14 billion estimate, and took over 14 years to build, 8 years behind schedule.

Im glad these powerplants finally got built. They will help, but nuclear is just not reasonable anymore. Its a slow, expensive tech, especially when we are making such leaps and bonds with solar/battery.

For additional context, one of the reason for the delay and cost increase was the absurdly complex design due to French and German companies trying to collaborate on a new design as Germany was turning anti-nuclear, which culminated with Germany deciding to stop nuclear energy after the Fukushima Daiichi event.

Another big reason is the knowledge loss due to almost one generation without any reactor built in between.

At least this one is on the coast so it can still run when the rivers dry up.

But holy shitsnacks 3½ times slower than planned and 4 times more expensive. No wonder no new nuclear power plants have been built in a generation when the ones coming online now were all delayed by a generation.