While I cannot speak as well on coal as it is not my specialty, nuclear has internalized most of its costs already. Price Anderson fees are paid by industry as well as fees for decommissioning and waste management. If you don’t like Yucca (which is probably deep enough for burial) you can use 5 km deep boreholes in crystalline granite. You do not need to actively monitor the wastes (especially if you recycle the fuel and remove the longer lived actinides).

Even with these additional expenses, nuclear is competitive. By the renewable advocates own arguments they require more skilled craft labor to construct. Finally, nuclear does not need energy storage systems.

I am NOT claiming that nuclear is the whole answer. My guess is that nuclear can provide the baseload while we figure out the practicality of an all renewable grid.

Subsidizing the construction of power plants, externalizing the cost of environmental degradation caused by coal mining and failing to include the cost of storing spent nuclear fuel for tens of thousands of years make them look cheaper than renewable energy on paper, even though they aren’t.

With a level playing field and 100% internalized costs, renewable-based electricity generation can be far cheaper than coal and nuclear.

In addition, construction of such a grid will require even more of the skilled craft (e.g., electricians, welders, pipefitters, mechanics, etc.) that are already in short supply.

Assuming the technological hurdles can be overcome, we also need low carbon electricity that is not overly expensive.