alt Hacker NewsPlease look at a chart of per-MWhr generation costs. Wind and solar are a fraction of the cost of nuclear (with solar plunging by the day, almost) and nuclear is only getting more expensive as time goes on despite being a decade or two away from being a 100 year old technology.
In the US nuclear plants are being phased out and wind/solar projects are replacing them at a ratio of roughly 6:1...with huge savings for grid operators and customers. It's so cheap, even with storage system costs it's still cheaper.
That's where utilities are focused: expanding energy storage and better transmission grid infrastructure. Those, and renewable energy, increase grid reliability.
Replies
As pointed out, the cost is only a fraction if you ignore the lack of batteries. Solar & Wind today can only be used economically for peak load. Baseload requires batteries and nuclear & fossil fuels remain more economical.
Of course it does depend on how you measure cost.
If you just measure generation costs then you are missing the other key element of a nation grid - it always working - and that characteristic costs as well, not just the electrons provided.
So those improved transmission and storage investments need to be put on the renewables total costs.
Nuclear also has significant decommissioning costs.
However the biggest cost here is probably that required to adapt to the effects of climate change if we don't take steps.