That's based on a single report produced by the UK and I don't think it's appropriate to damn the parent commenter so harshly based on that alone.

To contrast that report, in France, a country that actually uses nuclear power at scale, onshore wind is more expensive than nuclear and solar is only marginally cheaper [0].

And the renewables you mention aren't comparable to nuclear. Nuclear can be ramped up and down largely at will and doesn't really care what time of day it is or what the weather is like. Renewables need batteries. How does the cost work out when you include the energy storage needed to be as reliable as nuclear?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

The parent commenters argument was based on zero reports so I think my comment was appropriate. But even your link shows for France in €/MWh in 2017:

20 Hydro power

43.24 Solar farms

50 Nuclear (with state-covered insurance costs)

60 Onshore wind

61 Natural gas turbines without CO2 capture

100 Nuclear EPR

So nuclear is never cheaper than solar and only cheaper than wind if the state is covering the insurance cost! And your argument about nuclear ramping up and down at will only works, if you have enough Uranium available. Where do you buy your Uranium? How long will the Uranium reserves last? And where will you deposit the nuclear waste? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU

> So nuclear is never cheaper than solar

The price of solar doesn't include energy storage, so the two can't be easily compared.

> if the state is covering the insurance cost

Yes, though I'd be interested to know what those costs actually are.

> if you have enough Uranium available. Where do you buy your Uranium? How long will the Uranium reserves last?

Australia and Canada, both allied countries (to France/Germany), have megatons of the stuff [0]. Current reserves are enough to last about 90 years [0] but exploration is limited, more deposits likely exist.

Spent fuel rods can also be reprocessed [1].

> And where will you deposit the nuclear waste?

First, reprocess it [1]. When it's finally done for good, bury it deep in the ground [2].

Remember, nuclear isn't a new technology. It's been around for decades and solutions to these problems exist.

[0]: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fu...

[1]: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fu...

[2]: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fu...

> bury it deep in the ground [2]

Countries try to find suitable places to put their nuclear waste for 60 years now and haven't managed to select a single one, yet. The process costs billions of dollars of tax payers money. And it is roughly as fast as the invention of nuclear fusion. The success is always only 30 years away in the future.

When you're riding a dead horse the best strategy is to get off.

Cost in dollars is not related to negative externalities, i.e. whether something is environmentally friendly. In fact, often completely the opposite!