In the US it got blown into something completely different, about sticking it to the libs or whatnot. So we went ahead and did it because our president has the personality of a toddler.
The oil company could use Star Trek teleportation technology and people would still protest it. They don't oppose the pipeline, they oppose what runs through it. Yet, they didn't all get to those protests in electric cars on on bicycles. They didn't tweet about it on stone tablets -- they use the very product they don't want people to use.
Don't like oil? Stop benefiting from it while simultaneously hating it.
You don't have a particularly compelling argument, as illustrated in this humorous cartoon: https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha
As someone who doesn't drive and has opposed oil and natural gas based energy solutions thank you, I will.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130513055956/http://www.iisd.o...
Which in turn references this:
https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/neconomics/weltstatu...
Which basically says they have crappy data but then proceeds to lump in a lot of historical costs, like the sum of all taxpayer-funded fission R&D, including things like weapons and nuclear submarines that have little to do with civilian power generation, "liability caps" even though there hasn't actually been a reactor incident in the US that reached the liability cap (and fossil fuels and everything else also has de facto liability caps because of corporate limited liability), and "stranded cost" rules in deregulated energy markets that also apply to fossil fuel generating plants but aren't included there because the numbers are coming from completely different sources. Moreover, even some of the legitimate costs (like the R&D actually used for civilian power generation) are fixed costs that stay the same, and thus decline per kWh, if you build more plants. And that's what I could find in a few minutes of glancing at it.
This is par for the course in these comparisons. People want nuclear to look bad, so they lump in every cost they can find to the calculation, even ones that don't even apply, without doing the same for competing generation methods.
And this is before we even count the massive subsidy fossil fuels get from carbon not being priced.
de: https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&rem...
fr:https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&rem...
The prices you are quoting have sunk costs into them and don't represent total system costs of the initial build for example. As French nuclear plants from earlier investments reach end of life, France itself is estimating the need to introduce a higher portion of renewable and expects to save time and money from it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-10/french-po...
"France will save 39 billion euros ($44.5 billion) if it refrains from building 15 new nuclear plants by 2060, and bets instead on renewable energy sources to replace all its aging atomic facilities."
Name one nuclear power station that has ever been successfully completely replaced by renewables.
[1] https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/09/23/energy-subsidies-re...
I'm not convinced by a graph like you presented though. That's a measurement of subsidies which were spent, not subsidies which were available. In other words, if more nuclear power plants were built we'd be seeing a much higher amount being spent on subsidizing nuclear power. Since no one is building nuclear (thus taking advantage of available subsidies) and we are dropping wind turbines all over the place, it's only natural that renewable subsidies would far exceed nuclear.
Then you'd get more nuclear for baseload and in areas with less sunlight or cold winters, more solar for loads that align with its generation curve (like air conditioning) or are easy to time shift into sunlight hours (like charging electric cars) etc.
And the fossil fuel energy companies would lobby the national power utility to carry on burning fossil fuels, which they could do more easily than lobbying against a carbon tax because then there would be fewer private companies wanting to sell fossil fuel alternatives lobbying on the other side of the issue.
It can work at the local level because the local government is much more accountable to the local people, because the people getting screwed over by specific bad decisions are a larger percentage of the voters there.
A national power utility could do things like declare that all new power will be generated from solar because it's popular in and works for enough swing states and big states like Florida and California that people getting screwed in Minnesota or Alaska can't do anything about it. And then a different flavor of nonsense when the other party gets in and it's Pennsylvania and Texas wanting them to stop phasing out coal or stop building electric car charging infrastructure.
This is also one of the reasons why the healthcare systems in Europe are more efficient than the US -- their programs are not operated at the level of the EU and none of their member states are anywhere near as large as the entire US. And even their efficiency can be best classified as only tolerable rather than the hot garbage created by federal rules in the US.
But a power grid doesn't really work at a local level because it's an interstate grid, so it inherently implies a scale of bureaucracy that has historically led to high levels of government inefficiency.