Not at all, but long term storage of exhausted nuclear rods still costs an unknown amount of money endless centuries into the future. So you can't really put a number on the final bill.

It was usually old-style (insecure) and expensive, covered with hidden funding, or new tech (somewhat secure) and even more expensive.

Cheaper because it’s being subsidised and supported by gas peaker plants. If renewables had to deliver guaranteed capacity (and not just “yeah, I might deliver some power and some point and when I do, you better be able to receive it”) the real price would show. As it happens, grid operators can accept it because we’ve still got a grid full of steerable generation (mainly gas and nuclear) that they can turn off. Once it’s renewables all the way down, what are we going to do on the many periods where we don’t have wind for days? Storage?! Puhlese, the scale of the requirement is a magnitude higher than we could ever hope to store.

In the end, renewables will be shitloads cheaper if we maintain some steerable demand. I’d rather that be nuclear.

It’s best if we don’t think like a fanboy - but instead have a realistic debate about the price of integration nuclear at high penetration. The total mix price will be a lot cheaper if we maintain 20% steerable.

The science is pretty clear on this.

Off shore wind hehe

Why is it hydro always left out of these comparisons?

Nuclear was never "really" that cheap.