You still need grid reinforcement, storage, and baseload as back up for the wind, whilst nuclear doesn't have the same special/location constraints. I'd love to be 100% renewable; I literally developed wind, solar, and hydro as my job. But this cost is necessary; a grid without nuclear is a fantasy.
Were I trying to signal my intelligence with language like "grownup tradeoffs", "abject fools", and "fantasy", I would try not to shoot myself in the foot by making up stuff about the levelized cost of a power source. If nuclear's high costs really are necessary, you can just make that argument!
It has been a sound little thread imo. Let's avoid turning it into a pile on.
?