Nuclear vs renewables, page-2

I'd love to know where you got these numbers. I'd guess your source is dubious since the premise hinges on the 10 year lifespan... which is just plain wrong. It's more like 25 years... you've also overlooked that as an emerging technology the efficiency and price are improving at exponential rates. So the cost to replace after 25 years if needed will be a fraction of the current cost.

Look I'm a big believer in nuclear power as a replacement to existing coal and fossil fuels. We need it for baseload and stability - especially given the rise of EVs means we're going to need a LOT more power over the next 10-20 years... the best solution is a combination of renewables and nuclear... solar isn't the enemy of nuclear - coal is.

https://cleantechnica.com/2015/10/19/how-long-will-solar-panels-last/