It is in fact quite questionable whether solar and wind are so much better than nuclear.

I would suggest to read the following book, which quite clearly illustrate the actual problem that people are not using the facts w.r.t. to radiation and disqualifying nuclear as a requirement for preventing (if possible at all) the climate catastrophe that is coming:

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nuclear-Power-Been-Flop/dp/109830...

The amount of resources and CO2 emissions generated by solar and wind are still gigantic. The amount of battery storage required to attempt to handle the intermittency of power generation by solar and wind is not even feasible with the current battery technologies and required amounts of lithium deposits currently know.

If you make the claim that solar and wind is going to solve the climate castrophe, you are kidding yourself and humanity.

It is in fact deeply disturbing to hear environmental organizations make the claims about solar and wind and branding nuclear at evil. It is ignorant at best.

Did I read the costs (levelized cost of energy (operating)) $/MWhour incorrectly?

I took a low-high range of $24-$33/MWh for nuclear to be less than $37-$47 (coal) and competitive with $19-$29 (gas combined cycle).

Including capital costs, the nuclear cost is much higher which is why technologies are being developed to reduce the initial costs (hence the reference to Thorcon). I am not sure how fast renewables + storage will become viable for baseload, compared to alternative nuclear technologies, so I can make no comment on that.

Sorry - I got mixed up on the book reference - this one - https://www.amazon.ca/Why-Nuclear-Power-Been-Flop/dp/1098308... or this podcast - https://anchor.fm/chris15401/episodes/Why-Nuclear-Energy-Has...

Good book what should be done:

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nuclear-Power-Been-Flop/dp/109830...