Yeah, but even renewables + storage is likely to be cheaper than nuclear. Right now pumped hydro is one of the best for grid-scale storage, but with the the red

Yeah, but even renewables + storage is likely to be cheaper than nuclear. Right now pumped hydro is one of the best for grid-scale storage, but with the the reduction in cost of batteries, it may be that grid-scale battery storage becomes viable not too far in the future. And remember, nuclear generally needs some form of storage or supplementation with on-demand generation (generally via fossil fuels). Nuclear reactors are very slow to increase or decrease their output; they're best providing a constant base power output, but to account for periodic changes in demand across the day, you need either grid-scale storage or to supplement them with things like gas turbines that can quickly spin up and down. Many of our existing grid-scale energy storage systems are there to support nuclear. For example: https://www.wbur.org/news/2016/12/02/northfield-mountain-hydroelectric-station https://www.wbur.org/news/2016/12/02/northfield-mountain-hyd... But if you're already going to be building the grid-scale storage, supplying it with renewable energy can be a lot cheaper than supplying it with nuclear. I'm not saying that nuclear will have no place in the energy grid as we decarbonize. But the economics are hard to justify as renewables and storage become cheaper.