StarvingLion,
Your unfounded and ill-advised sarcasm aside, please note:
1) France is broke not because it chose nuclear energy, but because it chose to spend money on Socialist-style entitlement programs versus a steady replacement of aging reactors as they reached end-of-life. Then they made use of increasingly expensive life extension programs for those reactors, without ever producing any replacements. Bad planning plus a "kick the can" philosophy of postponing energy expenses. Their economy once enjoyed the cheapest electricity in Europe plus excess capacity that they sold over the power grid to other EU countries. Then they made bad choices, as did Germany which is replacing nuclear baseline generation with coal plants.
2) Batteries in EVs can be charged by Nuclear energy, Fossil energy, or Renewable energy. For the most part, EVs would be charged by slow overnight charging in residences. This INCREASES the efficiency of baseline power generation and does not require any infrastructure upgrades to the power grid itself.
3) Although metallic Lithium batteries are denser than the present technology Lithium-Ion batteries, the fire danger is extreme. Metallic Lithium spontaneously combusts when exposed to air, and practically explodes when exposed to water. That is of course what the nano-tech coating is about, but in an accident, the coating would most likely fail due to mechanical damage. Once the high-temperature combustion begins, adjacent cells will also burn. As a viable vehicle energy store, this battery would have to be compared to the (already hazardous) Lithium-Ion technology.
5) Steam turbine power plants have lower fuel costs than either ICE (i.e. disel engine) or gas turbine power plants fired with natural gas, while having the ability to burn multiple fuels from methane gas to coal to wood chips. They are also cheaper to construct and maintain in sizes that exceed about 650kW capacity.
In actual truth, most gas vehicle usage could be replaced with a low tech vehicle costing $10K with low tech lead-acid batteries. Such vehicles have ranges less than 50 miles, but the typical US commute is 18 miles round trip.
Everybody wants one of these:

...a $108,000 Tesla "S" with 200 mile range.
When what would meet their needs is a $10,000 NEV/LSV:

....basicly a low tech, street-legal golf car. Even with limited range, limited top speed, and using batteries full of caustic sulphuric acid, these vehicles are safer to drive than high tech, high expense vehicles intended for highway use.