I'm not convinced there aren't hidden costs with wind and solar, such as finding the land to put them on or the complexity of storing energy for night time usage or cloudy days or lack of wind etc.
What I do know is nuclear is able to power our collective needs just fine, day and night, RIGHT NOW and all we need to do is build the fucking things. So, let's build them...now.
Renewables are still an unknown, nuclear is not, and I'm not comfortable staking the future of the planet on "wellll, it will probably be fine in 10 years."
Storage is addressed at that modeling site. In particular, a mix of energy storage technologies appears to be very useful (not just batteries). A key is to note that a simple cycle turbine power plant is 5% of the capital cost of a nuclear plant per kW. So, if we had to totally back up the grid with hydrogen-burning turbines that could, in a rare pinch, supply 100% of the demand, it still would be cheap compared to supplying that same power with nuclear power plants.
Yes, but remember that any nuclear plant whose construction is started now will not be available for about 10 years. So it will be competing with the storage technologies of maybe 8 years from now. Given the rate of improvement in cost, it's very likely IMO that nuclear will be more expensive than just synthesizing the equivalent baseload source from renewables and storage.
https://model.energy/