Note that we also don't price in the gloabal warming of the planet, the medical costs of asthma, and the deaths from cancer that fossil fuels bring about. Or the ecological costs of the large land masses needed for renewables, which increase as low-hanging fruit is picked and you try to scale renewables up to a whole society.

I think proponents of nuclear welcome the cost comparisons. Nuclear stacks up really well when you start factoring in externalities.

I'd recommend looking into long term storage. The story there is a lot better than you'd think. It's kind of funny that this is even brought up at this point.

These arguments from the '60s are why we have a warmed planet.