Nuclear power is great for CO2, but not essential for clean energy. It is just too expensive compared to the alternatives.
The other bad news is that nuclear power does not mix well with the variable generation of wind and solar. Nuclear power is mainly useful a ‘base load’ generation with constant power output. Running nuclear plants in “load following mode” is much less efficient because the cost of the fuel is insignificant compared to they high based operating costs. That makes it expensive to operate with variable output. Natural gas peaker plants seem to be the better match, and so do Li_Ion batteries for short-term peaking.
According to the EIA the LCOE (total all-in cost) of nuclear power is about 2X that on natural gas for a plant coming on-line in 2023. It will be even worse when the nuclear is forced to run in dispatchable load following mode when more solar and wind come on-line. See: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
Another LCOE analysis shows an even higher cost for nuclear compared to the alternatives: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/
The latter pegs the LCOE cost for nuclear energy between 11 and 19 cents per kwh, vs 4-7 cents for gas CC, 4 cents for utility solar and 3-5 cents for wind.
A combination of solar + Li-ion batteries will be more cost-effective in places with somewhat reliable daily sun shine. The LCOE cost of that is currently 10-15 cents/kWh, but will drop in the next years.
In short: nuclear probably won’t save the world.
Takeaway: we still don't have grid storage tech. So it doesn't matter if some renewable is cheaper by some amortization logic, there has to be a generating station. Either that generating station is nuclear, or you are still using fossil fuels.
If you used amortization logic exceeding the life-time of current photovoltaics, and even wind turbines, but not the latest nuclear plant designs, it would probably show them as a a better value.
By the way, your first source (EIA paper) doesn't really agree. See table 1-B and Table 2. It shows that there is often a wide range in cost for renewable. But it shows the cost of nuclear is steady, meaning its flexibly to more geographies, most of the cost is the big up-front cost of the reactor & related facility, so other variations are hardly noticeable. And your second source is an equity firm; click through to the full report, there are no citations to data sources, other than themselves, or relevant technical experts. AFAIK, it hasn't been vetted by the industry experts. That being said, the data still basically agrees with my point. The graph on page 4 of the full report (cost of energy), shows that
The other thing is, we know we have enough uranium to continue mining it and setting up a supply chain on the chain of power production for nations. The aggregate supply curve is impressive. OTOH, There isn't enough raw material to use "lithium" batteries for grid storage.
I agree that some sources (Lazard) seem optimistic on the LCOE of renewables. The best summary of all data seems to be on Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_sourceThat LCOE contains all cost, so including the amortization based on the expected lifetime, decommissioning, and in case of wind and solar/wind the extra system cost due to their variable nature. That makes it the better comparison metric.
Most sources peg nuclear at around 10c/kWh. The cost of other power sources vary quite a bit by location, but it is clear that natural gas is always way cheaper, and that solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear as well.
The LCOE cost trend over the past 10 years is an even bigger problem for nuclear (see wiki table for EIA based data):
Natural gas -50%
Wind onshore: -70%
Wind offshore: -38%
Solar PV: -88%
Nuclear: ~0% (steady)
Looking at this very few investors will risk going nuclear when the other options keep on getting so much more competitive every year. The same cost trend applies to grid level storage using batteries, which are riding a similar Moore’s law like cost reduction curve.
Only a few years ago I was also gung-ho about nuclear. The dropping cost of others have changed the landscape and my mind.
Given how cheap natural gas is, and that is is 2X cleaner than coal, the generation trend will be:
Coal will continue to phase out
Most coal capacity is replaced by Natural gas CC with Peaker/backup capability
More solar and wind comes on line, thanks to ever decreasing LCOE cost.
Slowly more battery based grid storage
That is a fine plan. There is no compelling business case to add nuclear to this mix. On top of that add new nuclear takes many, many more years to approve and implement than than other sources options.
Some states (Hawaii, California) are reaching the point of “solar saturation” where more solar doesn’t help unless grid storage is added. Most other places have ways to go so can add plenty of extra cheap solar and wind to green the grid. In all cases, my money wouldn’t be on nuclear.
Poll