Nuclear is not more expensive that, say, offshore wind. [0]
> The deal took over a decade and not only includes upfront costs but also British bill payers giving a "generous" subsidy to French energy for 35 years.
Not so.
The deal is only to guarantee the price of electricity sold, which had to be done to remove financial uncertainty over decades in order for EDF/Chinese partner to agree to finance it.
Except the strike price used is far above the current market rate, with no real indication that it would reach that level naturally. Describing it as a generous subsidy might not be strictly accurate, but isn't far from the truth.
If the strike price used were the current market rate (or maybe a bit lower), that would seem reasonable to allow a company to have the required long term security knowing the bottom won't fall out from under them, but an implicit subsidy does not seem like a good strategy.
... or to accept that the plans were not economically viable as they stand. I'm an economist not a nuclear physicist, but the signal the market is sending is that these plans are not what is needed. Find a way to make the electricity cheaper, or accept the demand isn't there.
> The deal took over a decade and not only includes upfront costs but also British bill payers giving a "generous" subsidy to French energy for 35 years.
Not so. The deal is only to guarantee the price of electricity sold, which had to be done to remove financial uncertainty over decades in order for EDF/Chinese partner to agree to finance it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...