> The heating thing seems like an odd bit of trivia today, but back in 1988 French nuclear reactors had a capacity factor around 60% and home electric heating such as heat pumps(sic[1]) was considering one way of boosting consumption especially at night.
So, by your logic we were building new plants for no apparent reasons in the 80-90s, and to make it useful we decided to force people to use electric heaters to boost consumption. You couldn't imagine that there were no conspiracy to build nuclear plants for the sake of it and the logic actually went the other way around? After the oil shocks the French government decided to become more energetically independent. At this time most of the heating was provided via fuel oil boilers, so it was highly dependent on the international price of oil. So the government decided to encourage people to use electric heaters instead, and then built nuclear plants to provide the needed electricity. (the reader will note that this is a clear example of Brandolini's law, where the amount of effort needed to refute bullshit is significantly higher than to produce it).
> Things have clearly changed over time, but I am unaware of any current regulations banning new homes with electric heating.
So maybe you shouldn't talk about a country you don't know? “Réglementation Thermique 2012” (more commonly called “RT 2012”) is what you're looking for. And it was the biggest and most disruptive construction law ever, and was discussed in depth for years. Anyone with a least a minimal awareness on the French energy issues will inevitably be aware of it.
> Please enlighten us: European Union antitrust regulators approved the French government's plan to inject 4.5 billion euros ($4.8 billion) into embattled nuclear group Areva AREVA.PA, saying the rescue would not unduly distort competition. www.reuters.com/article/us-areva-restructuring-eu-idUSKBN14U1L0
Thanks, this cherry picking from the first Google result you could find illustrate my point about you not knowing the topic. Do you know the difference between a shareholder restructuring an asset and a state bailing out a private company? In the first case, the shareholder is actually rewarded the capital investment through its return on equity. Since Areva's restructuring, the French government has already been paid back through EDF's dividends. (of course these dividends aren't directly the result of the said restructuring, which is still bearing fruits, but simply the result of the recurring revenue that EDF brings to the French government ever year).
[1]: it was not heat pumps (which would be terrible for the job of artificially increasing consumption anyway because of their high yield) but plain convector, which where much affordable.