So where can I see a cost comparison that factors in the cost of storage? I've probably seen 20 people say this exact same thing and have never been able to find an actual cost breakdown that supports it.
On top of that nuclear cost estimates are based on running the reactors 100% 24/7 with minimal downtime. If you actually want to make them load following to eliminate gas peakers or storage, the cost for nuclear would go up significantly, because they are so strongly CAPEX determined.
So the reality of the current situation is that solar and wind are cheap now since when they are a relatively small percentage of the power and you can fall back on gas and coal storage isn't really needed. But in the future the costs of solar and wind will skyrocket since you'll need to overbuild the capacity by a huge amount, plus build lots of expensive transmission infrastructure, to work around the fact that storage technology at the appropriate scale doesn't exist yet.
It will be built after there is enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from.
Hint: The storage costs more than the power. Considerably more last time I looked at the numbers.
There are plenty around. This is probably the best: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... (make sure you scroll down to "Levelized Cost of Storage")
For US the insurance is capped at $450M per site and $131M per reactor because that's what been decided that the market can bear.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup
[2]: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/n...
The problem is nuke plants generally produce no hazard and rarely make a mess--and we go insane about said mess. We don't do much of anything about the much greater deaths from the other sources because they're more distributed and thus not noticed.
Instead of obsessing about maximum safety and cleanup etc, what we should be doing is saying nuke plants must have a better safety profile than their closest competitor--note that that is natural gas which currently has 100x the death rate. (Wind and solar are intermittent, until you count the storage systems you don't have a number at all. Hydro is capacity-limited. Biomass is limited.) And I think the chart in the article is allocating the Fukushima evacuation deaths to nuclear rather than to the politicians.
Basically if you have 5% of electricity generation from non-renewable sources (eg gas fired peaker plants) then electricity costs fall and you only need storage at $150/kWh (which is available now).