You probably have to look at the whole picture. Having part of the energy generation from nuclear probably makes the total cheaper than having no nuclear. Even if nuclear maybe is the most expensive.

Not having enough energy or having it cut off by a neighbour is very expensive.

While this is true, we don't have a good solution for long term energy storage. Even with plummeting costs and new technologies like sodium ion, batteries still only get you maybe ~12 hours of discharge. Pumped hydro give you longer storage, but there are limited places where you can build it. Unless geothermal becomes competitive, nuclear is still the best solution for carbon-free baseload.

Then why is China building 30 new reactors on top of the 60 they already have, if it's not competitive?

https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/china-says-i...

The answer is usually more about how China can actually build things, not that nuclear isn't economically feasible.

its expensive if it takes 20y. It's cheap if it takes under 6-8, like Barakah or China

Citation needed.

(Narrator: yes it will, and no it's not).