[bkor]

> Because what is implicit in saying that solar (or wind) is cheaper than nuclear per W produced is that it is a viable alternative to nuclear.

I do not see that implication.

Solar and wind is significantly cheaper than nuclear. That doesn't mean it is a replacement. That implies that there's a great way to solve the obvious drawbacks solar and wind have because of the high cost difference, plus speed/time things can be built.

A country needs to figure out their TCO and the energy mix. Which means yeah, the volatility needs to be solved. Which means that there needs to be more than solar/wind. But at the same time, nobody wants to invest in nuclear. It isn't commercially viable. It is important to not have to high electricity prices. Wikipedia has quite a section on the newest nuclear power station in the UK and the kWh cost for consumers at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_.... The cost was initially estimated at £24 per MWh but could now be £92.5.

Nuclear power stations have crazy cost overruns. The initial estimations are far too low (except maybe in China because they have recent experience).

> And if you need to do that then you need either a bunch of alternative on demand sources of energy (UK is using LNG) or some big storage capacity (+overprovision to fill them when it is sunny/windy). Nuclear doesn't need that.

Nuclear doesn't need a backup? UK built nuclear and has LNG. It's not so black and white as you stated.