> renewables offer substantially lower risk and quicker timelines than nuclear, so that's where the money seems likely to go.
You do the same as every other market, you make those companies pay for the externalities.
So they don't only pay for renewables but renewables + gas plants (and their environmental costs) + batteries + whatever else is necessary in a real grid.
And you'd charge the nuclear extra too because, despite what the people here who seem to hate renewables more than they like nuclear believe, the energy delivered by nuclear is not magic and needs to be matched to demand too.
Which is why we've built pumped hydro and implemented Time of Use pricing for many decades to help nuclear energy integrate well with the grid.
That's already what happens, that's why it's so expensive. You usually have an all included costs on one side and whatever minimum the private company could get away with legally on the other side.
The French gas plants got built to smooth out renewables, there's only a single gas plant built before 2010 and it wasn't even connected to the pipelines, it was a factory gas reuse.
I do think it was an environmental and diplomatic (as seen now in the Russian war) mistake.
You do the same as every other market, you make those companies pay for the externalities.
So they don't only pay for renewables but renewables + gas plants (and their environmental costs) + batteries + whatever else is necessary in a real grid.