I agreed that it costs more and read the study you linked. You are having a hard time accepting that some people might have a different opinion than you and are taking it like they are being obstinate. Sorry it costs more, but I don't think we need to be uniformly opposed to a viable option due to cost.
I'm not making this political, I said that the politics are irrelevant. I am not advocating for more nuclear -- I am advocating keeping options on the table regardless of politics or cost, because the issue is important to the progress of our species and condensing things down by referencing single studies and talking points is short-sighted -- we have been down that road, it didn't work, let's not bind our hands needlessly.
in practice, 20 years of walking away from nuclear meant that Germany brought coal-fired stations back last year. I'm sure renewables will stop it happening again in 20 years _this time_.
Germany brought a few coal plants out mothball to prevent the collapse of the French grid when half the French nuclear fleet was off line at the height of the energy crisis.
Which then were promptly mothballed again when the French got their nuclear power under control.
This is not something you can answer clearly, no one can.
I personally would say since renewables (there are many different types of renewable energy sources btw) are so much cheaper and easier to build they are more consistent.
France for example has really shitty nuclear plants that have been falling apart since the 90s - they are not reliable and fixing them is not feasible
