[Juliate]

https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-el... (International Energy Agency):

> Nuclear thus remains the dispatchable low-carbon technology with the lowest expected costs in 2025. Only large hydro reservoirs can provide a similar contribution at comparable costs but remain highly dependent on the natural endowments of individual countries. Compared to fossil fuel-based generation, nuclear plants are expected to be more affordable than coal-fired plants. While gas-based combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) are competitive in some regions, their LCOE very much depend on the prices for natural gas and carbon emissions in individual regions. Electricity produced from nuclear long-term operation (LTO) by lifetime extension is highly competitive and remains not only the least cost option for low-carbon generation - when compared to building new power plants - but for all power generation across the board.

As for the "government subsidized", I don't see that a particular problematic issue, but that may be just me (a quite a few fellow French people) - that's my taxes at work.

[Gwypaas]

Sure, when you disregard the initial investment cost and only look at the marginal nuclear is among the cheapest. Although still being undercut by new investments in renewables nowadays.

That is the issue at hand, building new nuclear is not only marginal cost, it is mostly fixed costs and a unfathomable initial investment.

[Juliate]

The question is rather: how do you expect to get rid of nuclear energy production in the coming century AND reduce CO2 emissions AND not get energy blackouts and prices soaring to unimaginable levels?