[ENIanDEM]

Some pretty wild unsourced claims masquerading as facts.

As with pretty much any energy source, (including wind, solar, gas..) nuclear tends to get cheaper the more you build. You can look up FOAK vs NOAK and note the curves. Not sure what you're referring to re difficulty of increasing %share?

How are you measuring "fuel rod lifecycle"? And how does that possibly comparable to "$/kWh solar"?

Here's [0] a good source for some facts. You should note that accounting for the whole lifecycle of mining/processing/operating/defueling/decommissioning, nuclear is ~1/4 of the emissions of solar. And this is only considering electricity; we still have 2-3x the kwh to source for our heating requirements. You're suggesting we get that all sorted with solar & wind too?

0 - https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the...

[Retric]

First your source is heavily biased, dig into the numbers they use and they skip for example workers commuting emissions as nobody lives within walking distance of a reactor. Making their comparison absolutely meaningless.

More importantly nuclear very specifically gets more expensive as you ramp up the percentage of grid energy your supplying. For a simple fact check look at the capacity factor of French nuclear reactors, for example:

France: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chooz_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Capacity factor 70.6% and around 700 full-time workers

USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callaway_Nuclear_Generating_St...

Capacity Factor: 87.70% (lifetime)

Lower capacity factors directly translate into higher costs as you still need to pay for the building and security guards etc, you just don’t generate as much energy from identical infrastructure.

PS: If you don’t want to do the leg work just compare national averages around 2000-2005 and then realize France needed to import and export a lot of electricity because they simply couldn’t afford to operate in isolation at 70+% nuclear generation.