> No, because that usually completely ignores point 2. For example the commonly used Lazard data on LCOE ignores storage and has zero cost component to allow fo

> No, because that usually completely ignores point 2. For example the commonly used Lazard data on LCOE ignores storage and has zero cost component to allow for time shifting over short or long periods. You need more than LCOE to make a fair comparison of costs of different energy sources. Yes, you need to compare total system cost. Which, as I said before you attempted to derail the point again, currently favours nuclear for a 30 year timescale -- but only barely. You're also presently mixing up units of LCOS with units of capacity ($130 per MWh would be 0.05% of current costs). > The storage costs totally dominate the costs so tomorrow’s cost of wind or solar generation is completely irrelevant for a fair comparison Luckily I was comparing tomorrow'scost of storage. Storage is about to do what PV did in the 2010s. There are at least three separate battery technologies presently scaling production that need no scarce materials and have an extremely compelling case for a 5-fold reduction in price. But even ignoring storage entirely, each dollar on renewables can remove more emissions than a dollar of nuclear. It's only when you have funded maximum penetration with ~4h storage that you should consider adding more. Then there's the fuel issue. In all of the mines and all of the spent fuel and all of the enrichment tailings, there is not enough U235 and Pu for a single load of fuel to provide more than about 60% of primary energy. Adding more than ahout 200GW of nuclear is scifi.