There are different ways to cook the numbers. In particular, there are different kinds of costs. In nukes, capex (capital expenditure) absolutely dominates. Th

There are different ways to cook the numbers. In particular, there are different kinds of costs. In nukes, capex (capital expenditure) absolutely dominates. That has to be amortized over all energy produced over the working life of the plant. Opex (operating expense) in nukes is also high in comparison to renewables', dominated by maintenance: overhauling steam turbines, inspections, repairs; and 24/7 staff and security. Fuel cost is low compared to coal, but far from negligible. There are hidden costs usually not counted, such as liability insurance always paid directly by taxpayers. Paying that out of revenue would price nukes' power completely out of the market, assuming any insurance company could afford to cover it at all. And there is decommissioning cost, a substantial fraction of capex. If the plant is mothballed early because it cannot produce at a competitive price, its cost for all the kWh already delivered suddenly jumps because its capex can be amortized over only those kWh. Similarly, if it is operated only at night, its per-kWh cost doubles because it costs about the same per day whatever its output. Usually existing nukes are compared to renewables with the nukes' capex, liability, and decommissioning costs artificially pinned to zero, but counting the full capex of the renewables, because those have to be built before they can produce. Renewables' opex is very close to zero. Maintaining a big steam turbine is remarkably expensive. Nuke plants are built with spares because they spend so much time down for overhauling.