In fact, there is considerable concern over nuclear, precisely because it looks like it is underpriced due to underestimation of the decomissioning costs. The

In fact, there is considerable concern over nuclear, precisely because it looks like it is underpriced due to underestimation of the decomissioning costs. The economic lifetime of the first commercial installations is only now starting to end (partly because they have been extended so often). So we do not have that much data to work with, but so far it does not look good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning "In Europe there is considerable concern over the funds necessary to finance final decommissioning" Moreover, like the decomissioned reactors, the fuel will have to be stored for a very very long time. Most of the fuel generated since the 40's and 50s is in "temporary storage", in their original installation. We have never built installations that have to last as long as the nuclear storage sites we envision, and we have no idea how the ones we have started to build will hold up over the hundreds if not thousands of years that they have to last. I can apreciate people taking an optimistic view on this, and saying that these problems should not preclude nuclear. But saying that nuclear is compared in an unfair light due to decomissioning is taking the issue the wrong way around.