Forgive me if I tend to question the validity of a 2013 anti-nuclear "study" as it pertains to SMRs. The part of about running out of Uranium was particularly funny, similar to the current protests about we can't produce EVs or do grid-scale storage because there's not enough Lithium on the planet.

Regardless, from my perspective your primary point regarding "true" costs is flawed anyway. Governments have provided incentives and subsidies (and insurance) to the fossil fuel industry for decades. They're currently doing the same in many cases for wind and solar.

I see no reason why nuclear should be any different in that regard, especially when it has the capability to provide 24/7 baseload power with one of the lowest amounts of total CO2 emissions per kW/hr.

And for that matter, we're already going to be footing the bill for damages resulting from and relating too AGW.

Germany basically screwed over everyone with its decision to abandon plants already in operation, especially since its only interim solution is to burn more gas and coal.

Made the fossil fuel industry happy, anyway.