I would not put all my money on just one solution. I don't know how many years away grid scale storage is. I hope it's 1 year, I expect it's a decade or more.

Besides, we had 6 consecutive weeks country wide harsh winter this year. Storing it over night, or over a few days of mild winds is feasible. 6 weeks of little to no sun, mild winds and high demand is eyepopping.

A low maximum price is a better measurement of what is good.

We had 6 consecutive weeks of country wide harsh winter temperatures this year. Suddenly the fact that electricity was almost free and occasionally negative spot price during summer was irrelevant.

Any source for this significant claim?

The German ministry for Safety of nuclear energy (BASE) published an official statement that nuclear energy is not only unsafe, but also way too expensive:

https://www.base.bund.de/shareddocs/faktencheck/base/de/atomstrom-alternative-energiequellen-kosten.html

There are studies by the Deutsches Insitut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW, German Institute of Economic Research) that show significant higher costs per kWh than other power sources:

https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.867887.de/publikationen/wochenberichte/2023_10_1/ausbau_von_kernkraftwerken_entbehrt_technischer_und_oekonomischer_grundlagen.html

https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.670481.de/publikationen/wochenberichte/2019_30_1/zu_teuer_und_gefaehrlich__atomkraft_ist_keine_option_fuer_eine_klimafreundliche_energieversorgung.html

At my company, we work together with the Gesellschaft für Endlagerung (BGE). These guys are responsible to find safe long time storage for nuclear waste. Spoiler: as of now, there is no such thing as safe long time storage.

The German energy provider Enbw claims costs per kWh to be as high as 0.49€ for nuclear energy, which is ridiculous high. And they did not even factor in the high costs of safe long time storage!

The costs of construction and deconstruction are significant. You cannot just ignore them. That is useless cherry picking.

Ok i gave this the benefit of the doubt and watched the whole video.

Things there where not included in the calculation:

• Cost of compensating for environmental destruction from uran mines (and health care costs for thost impacted by the radio active dust from them)

• Political cost of importing fissile fuel from other nations (importing from russia/usa gives russia/usa leverage over you wich then can get expensive in other parts of the economy)

• Cost at end of plant life cycle, aka building it back once the structure has aged beyond what maintenance can fix

• Cost of storing and maintaining radio active waste for the next few million years

The video also only compares those selective picked numbers to fossil fuels and not things like solar or wind.

This video did not change my opinion, but thanks for suggesting it.