[tlocke]

Comparing electricity costs between countries probably says more about government subsidies than the underlying cost of generation. Nuclear fission is an expensive source of electricity (see the high subsidies for Hinckley C) and so I suspect France's nuclear power is heavily subsidised.

[throw0101c]

> Nuclear fission is an expensive source of electricity (see the high subsidies for Hinckley C) and so I suspect France's nuclear power is heavily subsidised.

There are no subsidies in Ontario, Canada, and nuclear is the second cheapest (CA$ 0.101/kHw) after hydro-electric (6.2¢/kWh); see Table 2:

* https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2023...

[tlocke]

For nuclear, the subsidies are often in insurance and decommissioning and long-term storage of waste.

So looking at insurance, it's impossible to fully insure a nuclear power station, and so the state effectively insures it.

With long term storage of waste, the material has to be securely stored for about 10,000 years. As far as I know, only Finland is doing this so far.

With decommissioning, it always costs more than is set aside, and so the taxpayer gets left to pick up the pieces eventually.

With your example of Ontario I don't know how these costs I've outlined will be handled, but if it's anything like the UK the costs will be pushed onto the taxpayer.