> I think this just goes to show how ridiculously expensive Nuclear is to build in the first place, even before the ongoing costs, waste disposal, decommissioning, etc.
All proponents of renewables bringing the topic of nuclear price fail to make the point that they are comparing apples and oranges. One is reliable, the other is not. To make a fair comparison, you have to include either
- the price of added storage, for which the latest estimates I've seen show would put the price at 5-30x the original price per kWh, including manufacturing, power losses, renewal, etc.
or
- the price of making the electricity less reliable for the industry. It's possible, and seriously considered in 100% renewables scenarios, to switch the electricity consumption for industries at specific times (e.g. the factories run at peak solar or peak wind only). And give incentives for individuals (variable kWh price) to try to pilot their consumption around the production. Problem: this might ruin the competitivity of the industry. The costs associated are much harder to estimate.
TL;DR even if it comes at a very high costs, nuclear would still be cheaper than renewables + adequate storage.