When comparing solar to nuclear we also need to include storage and dimensioning to get an equivalent 24/7 output.
This might still make solar cheaper but difference will be smaller than headline numbers.
This might still make solar cheaper but difference will be smaller than headline numbers.
The basic point is that nuclear is just really, really expensive, and it has been getting more expensive over time, while solar and wind have been getting cheaper.
No, that is a red herring. That exact comparison would be only for greenfield projects disconnected from everything else. When connecting to an existing network, the existing (and future) generation on it is also important. For instance, if the network already has a high enough amount of gas generation, 10MW of solar or 10MW of nuclear would reduce the use of fossil fuel by the same amount; the same applies to reducing the use of water stored in hydroelectric dams.