Much of nuclear power's cost lies in the cost overruns during construction and decommissioning. The community goes out on a limb by committing X billion-dollars to a massive project, and then the dynamic becomes one of extortion because the community is trapped... people feel they can't just walk away when the costs go up five-fold or more. Overall costs in the industry keep going up over time, so any subsidies to nuclear are yielding diminishing returns.
The only way to 'shop' for nuclear is to ingratiate yourself as a large institution to a large (usually private) institution. This is "competitive" only in theory, and is a recipe for being ripped-off by unaccountable corporate interests who can live large off of a couple of bad deals per decade (repeat business is not so important).
--
Renewables like wind and solar have a strong history of cost reductions-- even while its subsidies are being reduced! Subsidies have bestowed on wind and solar the economies of scale needed to make them as attractive economically as they are ecologically.
Wind and solar also often come in comparatively bite-sized chunks, so the financial risk for each project remains manageable. They are based on the purchase of commodity hardware, like going shopping for a TV or a car. The result is more manufacturers competing at low profit margins, who must look forward to making tens-of-thousands-to-millions of future sales based on their reputation, and have no avenue for monopolistic rent-seeking.
--
The economics of wind and solar are simply healthier; Nuclear economics attracts corruption.
= new reply since forum marked as read
