On this, another funny story that pro nuclear also don't mention: this summer when it was very hot (and electricity demand for AC was high) they had to shut down several reactors because the cooling river would have been over heated too much. People criticize renewable for not being available all the time (which is indeed a problem without storage) but here thankfully solar saved the day by being available when it was needed.
Last thing that people tend to forget when they criticize ecologists views on nuclear: part of many ecologist program is to make it so that we use less energy. Heating and cooling poorly insulated housing is wasteful and stupid. Having everyone having their own transportation mean rather than having collective and energy efficient transportation system or having housing too far from commodities such that people can't walk or bike to them is also wasteful. And AI... Bref, let's fix that then maybe we won't need that much nuclear power in the end.
We invested massively in nuclear power in recent decades? Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer, Hinkley Point C, Olkiluoto, Flamanville were the west ensuring nuclear investment while at the same time investing in the nascent renewable sector.
In total something like a ~$100-200B investment in nuclear technology. The nuclear investment evidently did not pan out.
How much more should we have spent? Should we just push through no matter the cost even though we have cheaper alternatives?
France has cheap electricity because of the nuclear buildout, in other words: because engineers saved 50% on the price, not because an MBA saved 0.1% on the price.
It's not like it took much planning to avoid that outcome, it just wasn't done. But I'm sure this saved EDF 5 bucks and the costs were carried by everyone else.
I say "they got into trouble", which is true, they caused the trouble. But not financially, of course, WE got into trouble there. Given that the CEO is an accountant I'd bet my firstborn this was not lost on him. But all of France is paying for their systematically wrong decisions over a long period (which still leaves the power pretty cheap tbh).
The thing is that nuclear power is still a relatively new thing and we don't have historical experience to rely on. Since it is basically the first time reactors are this old and there are a lot of risks, it was decided to verify just to be sure.
But now we know they can run fine for much longer than was anticipated. That is something the anti-nuclear conveniently avoid, the reactors have cost a lot to build but they are still providing value and it's expected that their life will be extended by quite a lot.