The Lazard paper has solar with battery storage at around 6 or 7 cents per kilowatt hour all in, while nuclear power comes in around 14 to 20 cents all in. So even when paired with batteries, renewables are cheaper than nuclear power by a lot.

Also, we're a long way away from a mostly renewable grid and for the next decade or two, using some natural gas when we need to support intermittent renewables will give us a relatively clean grid at a very reasonable cost.

The other challenge for nuclear power is that it's not flexible enough to economically follow load. That means it can only satisfy around 50% or so of a grid's total daily load. So at most it can provide half the solution, and for around 2 or three times the cost of better alternatives.

I'm not anti nuclear and strongly support the generous funding for research on advanced designs that was included in the bills signed by President Trump and also President Biden in the past few years. I also support the new production tax credit for nuclear power that was included in the Inflation Reduction Act. Nuclear power should get credit for its carbon free output just like other clean energy sources.

It'd be great if one of the promising next-gen technologies works out. The trouble is that we don't have anything cost competitive right now and the promising designs on the drawing board are at least 2 decades away from mass deployment.