Nuclear energy is not expensive

The myth

"Nuclear energy costs more than 160 euros per megawatt-hour — at least one and a half to twice as expensive as wind and solar." This is the most repeated argument against nuclear energy. It sounds convincing, but it is comparing apples with oranges.

The facts

The fundamental problem: intermittent vs. dispatchable

Wind delivers electricity when the wind blows. Solar delivers electricity when the sun shines. A nuclear power plant delivers electricity when you need it — 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 90%+ of the time.

The standard LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy) compares production costs per kilowatt-hour, but ignores a crucial difference: a kilowatt-hour that is there when you need it is not the same as a kilowatt-hour that might be there.

When you add storage costs to make wind and solar comparably dispatchable ("firm LCOE"):

Source: Lazard LCOE+ v17.0 (June 2024). With storage, the cost ranges overlap significantly. Nuclear energy is suddenly no longer "twice as expensive."

The hidden system costs of renewables

The OECD/NEA calculates that system costs for variable renewable energy amount to an additional $15-80/MWh, depending on the penetration rate. At 30% renewables on the grid, total system costs rise by 16-180%. These costs are never included in the LCOE comparison:

• Grid reinforcement: estimated at EUR 100+ billion for the Netherlands alone
• Backup capacity: gas-fired power stations that must remain on standby for when the wind drops
• Curtailment: overproduction that is thrown away (already a regular occurrence in Germany)
• Battery storage at system scale: not yet achieved anywhere in the world for an industrialised country

Selective project choice: only the worst examples

Critics base their cost calculations exclusively on first-of-a-kind (FOAK) Western projects suffering from lost industrial experience after decades of not building:

This is like assessing the cost of driving based exclusively on the first prototypes of electric cars, whilst ignoring the millions of affordable models.

Lifespan: the forgotten factor

You build a nuclear power plant once. Wind turbines and solar panels need to be replaced three to four times over the same period. The costs of those replacements — including demolition, recycling, and rebuilding — are rarely factored in.

Financing costs are political, not technical

Yes, high interest rates make nuclear energy more expensive — a 4% interest rate doubles the costs over 30 years. But this is a consequence of policy uncertainty and political risk, not of the technology. In countries with clear nuclear policy, financing costs are structurally lower. The question is not "is nuclear energy expensive?" but "do we want to make it affordable?"

Conclusion

The claim that nuclear energy is "twice as expensive" as wind and solar compares intermittent sources without storage to dispatchable capacity. That is not a fair comparison. When you include the actual system costs — storage, grid reinforcement, backup, curtailment, lifespan — nuclear energy is competitive and in many scenarios cheaper. Borssele currently operates at EUR 58/MWh. The expensive Western FOAK projects are the result of policy failure, not technological limitations.

Sources

1. Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ v17.0 (June 2024) (link)
2. OECD/NEA, The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables (2024) (link)
3. Breakthrough Institute, "Lazard's LCOE is Misleading on Nuclear" (link)
4. Dr. Rogier Potter van Loon, Kernenergie: een analyse van de maatschappelijke kosten en baten (link)
5. EPZ annual report, operational costs of Borssele nuclear power plant (link)