[modo_mario]

Much of the reason nuclear got more expensive is that there's been such a big dip in construction. Lessons are having to be relearned and we're paying for it. That and so many politicians and contractors getting away with being leeches whilst dragging out projects in some countries. Comparisons of construction projects of the same design in china vs europe would make one cry.

Also much of the price reduction for renewables are in things like solar which has other issues like it's shorter lifespan paired with it's recycling being basically a joke/scam.

Additionally if you throw a solar panel or windmill in the trash before it's proper and well done the cost of it's energy in the calculation goes up just the same.

[pfdietz]

Solar recycling is still rudimentary because the vast majority of PV modules that have ever been produced are still in use. The doubling time of the exponential growth of solar has been much less than the lifespan of PV modules.

The shorter lifespan of PV is actually a good thing for solar. In an environment where technology is changing rapidly, long lifespan has little value. Would you think it's a huge negative if your PC fails after 20 years instead of 40? No, because you replace it before then anyway. Pretending that nuclear is better because its value is computed based on a 40 year lifespan is just pretending that its competitors will stop improving (otherwise, the nuclear plant won't even make it to 40 years due to operating costs > full cost of renewables.)

[modo_mario]

>Solar recycling is still rudimentary because the vast majority of PV modules that have ever been produced are still in use.

The problems with it's recycling are a bit more inherent than that.

>The shorter lifespan of PV is actually a good thing for solar.

It's downright silly to say that PV degrading is good for it. The improvements don't stop because they have to be replaced quicker. More people would adopt it if they lasted longer since the ROI is higher, etc I might replace my pc in less than a decade but I'm not jumping to get on a roof again and invest 10's of thousands of euros.

[pfdietz]

It's good because it means there's another cost decline for PV that will occur even after the manufacturing cost per watt stops declining: simply make the modules last longer. Nuclear has already shot its wad on that one.

It also means PV is less at risk right now from obsolesence. The shorter the time span needed to justify a PV installation, the less motivation there is to delay and wait for better technology.

[modo_mario]

>Nuclear has already shot its wad on that one.

Given that it still ends up the best from a cost perspective (solar doesn't come close) if extended marginally i wouldn't say so.

There is one core difference. Those extensions, investments and even proper use need political will given the size and scope of such projects. Those politicianse are subject to stupidity and lobbying. Hell the US bans fuel rod recycling at the behest of oil and gas companies to give one such example.